Rubalcava v. City Of San Jose

Background

Lionel Rubalcava alleged that San Jose Police Department officers and Santa Clara County investigators fabricated evidence, pressured witnesses, concealed favorable information, and otherwise committed misconduct that led to his conviction for attempting to murder Raymond Rodriguez. Rubalcava alleged that he served more than seventeen years in prison for a crime he did not commit. His conviction was vacated in 2019, and the Santa Clara County Superior Court later made a finding of factual innocence.

Rubalcava brought federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims against individual officers and investigators, the City of San Jose, and the County of Santa Clara. The City defendants moved to dismiss all claims against them. The County defendants moved to dismiss the fabrication-of-evidence claim, the failure-to-intervene claim, the County policy claim, and the state-law claims. The motions were brought under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim.

City Defendants

The court denied the City defendants’ requests to use trial transcripts and other submitted documents to challenge the complaint’s factual allegations. The court also denied their request to treat those documents as part of the complaint. It held that the documents could not be used at the dismissal stage to substitute the defendants’ version of events for the version alleged in the complaint.

For Claim 1, alleging deliberate fabrication of evidence, the motion was granted with leave to amend as to supervisors Walt Tibbet, Rich Torres, and Gary Hafley. The motion was denied as to Perez, Topui Fonua, Steven Spillman, Rafael Nieves, and Ramon Avalos.

For Claim 2, alleging suppression of exculpatory or impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland, the motion was granted with leave to amend as to Avalos, Ron Baldal, Tibbet, Edgardo Garcia, Torres, and Hafley. It was denied as to Perez, Fonua, Spillman, and Nieves.

For Claim 3, alleging malicious prosecution, the motion was granted with leave to amend as to Baldal, Tibbet, Garcia, Torres, and Hafley. It was denied as to Perez, Fonua, Spillman, Nieves, and Avalos.

For Claim 4, alleging a civil-rights conspiracy, the motion was granted with leave to amend as to Baldal, Tibbet, Garcia, Torres, and Hafley. It was denied as to Perez, Fonua, Spillman, Nieves, and Avalos.

For Claim 5, alleging supervisory liability, the motion was granted with leave to amend as to Tibbet, Garcia, Torres, and Hafley.

For Claim 6, alleging failure to intervene, the motion was granted with leave to amend as to Perez, Spillman, Avalos, Nieves, Fonua, Baldal, Tibbet, Garcia, Torres, and Hafley.

For Claim 7, the claim seeking to hold the City liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services for a municipal policy, practice, or custom, the motion was granted with leave to amend. The court found that the complaint did not clearly identify the City’s alleged training failures or custom of fabricating gang reports and did not provide enough supporting facts.

The motion to dismiss the state-law Claims 9 and 10 was denied. The court also denied the City defendants’ motion to dismiss the individual officers’ claims based on qualified immunity. It concluded that, before 2002, the relevant law clearly established that deliberately fabricated evidence, violations involving disclosure of favorable evidence, and other alleged misconduct could violate constitutional rights.

County Defendants

The County defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. The motion was granted without leave to amend as to Claim 1, both claims numbered Claim 9, and Claim 10. The opinion states that Rubalcava’s counsel clarified that Claim 1 was not intended to be asserted against the County defendants and that Rubalcava agreed to voluntary dismissal of the state-law claims against them.

As to Claim 6, the failure-to-intervene claim against Doug Kaleas and Brian Geer, the motion was granted with leave to amend. The court found that Rubalcava did not identify which defendants were responsible for particular failures to intervene, did not allege that Kaleas and Geer had an opportunity to intervene in the alleged conduct by San Jose officers, and alleged that Kaleas and Geer were directly responsible for some of the conduct rather than failing to prevent it.

As to Claim 8, the Monell claim against the County, the motion was granted with leave to amend. Rubalcava alleged that the County lacked procedures ensuring that prosecutors were told about witness-protection payments. The court found that the complaint did not allege facts showing that the County had actual or constructive notice that the alleged omission would likely result in a constitutional violation.

Disposition

The City defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, with leave to amend, as specified above. The County defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, with leave to amend in part and without leave to amend in part, as specified above. Judge Beth Labson Freeman gave Rubalcava twenty-one days after the order, or until August 5, 2021, to amend the identified claims. The order also stated that he could not add new claims or parties without permission from the court.