Calonge v. City Of San Jose

Background

Rosalina Calonge alleged that on October 31, 2019, San Jose police officers followed her son, Francis Calonge, after responding to a report of someone brandishing a gun. She alleged that Francis was walking away, did not respond to verbal commands, and was not posing an imminent threat. She further alleged that Officer Edward Carboni positioned himself against a tree, directed other officers to move, and then shot Francis in the back, killing him. The complaint alleged that Francis had schizophrenia and may have been experiencing a psychotic episode.

Calonge sued the City of San Jose and Officer Carboni. She asserted claims concerning the shooting as Francis’s successor in interest and asserted separate claims on her own behalf, including a Fourteenth Amendment claim, a Bane Act claim, and a California Public Records Act claim. The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legally sufficient claim.

Fourteenth Amendment claim

Calonge alleged that the defendants violated her right to familial association under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court explained that such a claim requires allegations that the official’s conduct “shocks the conscience.” Where officials had an opportunity to deliberate, a plaintiff may meet that standard by alleging deliberate indifference.

The court held that Calonge adequately alleged an opportunity for deliberation. The complaint alleged that Francis was walking away, had not drawn a firearm or made threatening gestures, that officers gave repeated verbal commands, and that Carboni had time to position himself, direct other officers, and wait for an adequate backstop. Accepting those allegations as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court denied the defendants’ motion as to the Fourteenth Amendment claim.

Bane Act claims

The California Bane Act permits an individual whose constitutional or statutory rights were interfered with to bring a civil action. The court stated that a plaintiff must show that the officer specifically intended to violate constitutional rights and, for the use-of-force theory at issue, intended not only to use force but to use unreasonable force.

For Calonge’s Bane Act claim brought as Francis’s successor in interest, the court found the allegations sufficient. The complaint alleged that the defendants shot Francis in the back without first evaluating behavioral cues related to his mental illness or using de-escalation tactics, contrary to police-training standards. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss that claim.

For Calonge’s Bane Act claim brought on her own behalf, the court held that the Bane Act does not create a wrongful-death cause of action. The court granted the motion to dismiss that claim without leave to amend because additional factual allegations could not cure the pleading.

California Public Records Act claim

Calonge alleged that the defendants repeatedly extended the response time and failed to produce requested video, audio recordings, and memoranda relating to the October 31, 2019 incident. The defendants argued that the claim belonged in state court, that the complaint did not adequately challenge the production timeline, and that the claim was moot because the records would be produced through discovery.

The court rejected the jurisdictional argument, explaining that the California Public Records Act permits proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction and that the federal court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the claim arose from the same case or controversy as the federal claims. The court also held that, accepting the allegations as true, Calonge plausibly alleged that the records were not produced promptly. It declined to declare the claim moot before discovery occurred and denied the motion to dismiss the public-records claim.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It granted the motion, without leave to amend, as to Calonge’s Bane Act claim on her own behalf. It denied the motion as to her Fourteenth Amendment claim, her Bane Act claim as Francis’s successor in interest, and her California Public Records Act claim.