Sanderlin v. City of San Jose

Background

Eight individual plaintiffs sued the City of San Jose and various members of the San Jose Police Department for alleged civil-rights violations arising from protests in San Jose after George Floyd’s death. The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court said the plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were too broad because all plaintiffs asserted claims against all defendants based on a wide range of conduct. The plaintiffs were required to identify the conduct supporting each claim and connect that conduct to a particular defendant.

Rulings on federal claims

The court dismissed the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities without leave to amend. Because the City itself was also being sued, the court found those official-capacity claims duplicative.

The court dismissed with leave to amend the federal claims against Chief Eddie Garcia in his personal capacity. The complaint did not allege that Garcia was personally involved in the protests or provide non-conclusory facts connecting his conduct to the alleged constitutional violations.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the federal claims against Captain Jason Dwyer in his personal capacity. Although the factual allegations against Dwyer were thin, the court declined to dismiss the claims based on the allegations that he arrived during the protest, declared an unlawful assembly, and allegedly planned, authorized, ordered, permitted, or ratified the police response.

The court dismissed with leave to amend the federal claims against Sergeant Christopher Sciba in his personal capacity. The complaint did not allege facts showing Sciba’s personal involvement or a causal connection between his training materials and the alleged constitutional violations.

The court dismissed with leave to amend the federal claims against Sergeants Jonathan Byers, Ronnie Lopez, and Lee Tassio, and Officer Jonathan Marshall, in their personal capacities, except for claims brought by plaintiff Shante Thomas. The complaint did not allege constitutional violations by those defendants against the other plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs did not object to this dismissal.

The court dismissed with leave to amend the federal claims brought by Cayla Sanderlin, Breanna Contreras, Adira Sharkey, Joseph Stukes, and Vera Clanton against Officer Jared Yuen in his personal capacity. The court also dismissed with leave to amend Peter di Donato’s federal claims against Yuen, at the plaintiffs’ request. The court found that the complaint did not connect Yuen to constitutional violations against those plaintiffs.

The defendants also sought dismissal based on qualified immunity, a legal protection that can shield government officials from certain damages claims. The court denied the motion on qualified-immunity grounds because the allegations against the individual defendants had not yet been properly clarified and the court was unaware of authority allowing qualified immunity for an unnamed defendant.

Municipal and state-law claims

The court dismissed with leave to amend the plaintiffs’ claim against the City of San Jose based on alleged municipal customs, policies, and practices, commonly called a Monell claim. The court found that some alleged policies lacked sufficient factual support, some were too vague, some described discretionary decisions rather than policies, and additional facts were needed to show that certain policies existed when the protests occurred.

The court dismissed with leave to amend the plaintiffs’ claim under California Civil Code § 52.1, known as the Bane Act, to the extent that claim was based on the plaintiffs’ § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim, which the court had already dismissed.

The court dismissed with leave to amend the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because the plaintiffs needed to connect each allegation to a particular defendant.

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss Cayla Sanderlin’s loss-of-consortium claim on the ground asserted. The defendants had argued that she could not seek damages based on violations of her husband’s civil rights, but the court stated that they offered no authority preventing her from bringing that claim.

The court found that Vera Clanton’s claims satisfied the federal rule allowing plaintiffs to join in one case. Her claims arose from the same protests between May 29 and June 2, 2020 and involved similar legal questions, including whether the police department violated plaintiffs’ First and Fourth Amendment rights.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, with leave to amend in part. The plaintiffs were ordered to file an amended complaint no later than August 30, 2021.