Keith Bohren v. City of San Jose
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-04529
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Roxanne Bohren v. San Jose Police Department, Judge Freeman granted dismissal of the existing complaint, barred one claim, and allowed amendment of the others.
Roxanne Bohren’s case was dismissed as to Santa Clara County and the proposed § 1983 claim against the County was dismissed with prejudice. Her proposed claims against officer Avila, the City of San Jose, and the San Jose Police Department could be amended and refiled in the third amended complaint.
What happened
Roxanne Bohren sued the City of San Jose, the San Jose Police Department, officer Avila, and Santa Clara County over an alleged arrest and jail booking. She proposed filing a third amended complaint after agreeing that her second amended complaint should be dismissed.
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. It found that proposed changes to four claims were not futile: claims alleging false arrest, discriminatory arrest, city and police-department policies, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It found the proposed claim against Santa Clara County futile, dismissed that claim with prejudice, and dismissed the County from the case.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered Ms. Bohren to file the proposed third amended complaint, allowing only deletion of the County claim unless the court gives permission for further changes.
The detailed version
- Keith Bohren v. City of San Jose · No. 5:20-cv-04529
- Beth Freeman
- July 20, 2021
Background
Roxanne Bohren sued San Jose police officer Avila, the City of San Jose, the San Jose Police Department, and Santa Clara County. Her claims arose from an alleged arrest while she was walking home and her subsequent booking at Santa Clara County’s Main Jail. She alleged that Avila arrested her for allegedly loitering for the purpose of prostitution under California Penal Code § 653.22, although she denied the allegation and no charges were filed.
The operative pleading was Ms. Bohren’s second amended complaint. She agreed that it should be dismissed and submitted a proposed third amended complaint. The defendants argued that the proposed pleading remained deficient and asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice.
Claims and proposed amendments
The proposed third amended complaint asserted five claims:
- A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Avila for false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- A § 1983 claim against Avila for discriminatory arrest under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- A claim against the City and the San Jose Police Department based on alleged policies or customs under Monell. A Monell claim seeks to hold a government entity responsible for a constitutional violation caused by its policy or custom.
- A Monell claim against Santa Clara County based on alleged jail housing conditions.
- A California claim against Avila for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Court’s analysis
For the false-arrest claim, the court explained that an arrest is actionable under § 1983 when it occurs without probable cause or another justification. The court found the proposed allegations sufficient to conclude that amendment of this claim was not futile.
For the discriminatory-arrest claim, the court stated that Ms. Bohren had to allege both discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose. The proposed complaint alleged that she, a transgender woman, was arrested for walking at night while men and cisgender women were not arrested for doing so. The court found the proposed amendment not futile.
For the claim against the City and San Jose Police Department, Ms. Bohren alleged a long-standing policy of arresting transgender women who walk at night and alleged deliberate indifference to their constitutional rights. The court found the proposed amendment not futile.
The court reached a different conclusion about the County claim. Ms. Bohren alleged that she had a constitutional right to be housed separately from men in jail and relied on a California law enacted in 2020. The court stated that the law was not in effect when she was arrested in July 2019 and could not supply the basis for a § 1983 claim, which protects rights secured by the United States Constitution and federal law. The court also noted that she had not alleged that she was placed in a cell with men. Because the amendment was futile and Ms. Bohren had repeatedly failed to correct the deficiency, the court dismissed the County claim with prejudice and dismissed Santa Clara County from the case.
For the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, Ms. Bohren alleged that Avila failed to lock her home before leaving, took her to an unmarked gray warehouse rather than directly to jail, and referred to her in a traumatizing way. The court could not conclude as a matter of law that amendment of this claim was futile.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ unopposed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint could be filed, but it had to delete the County claim. Without further permission from the court, no additional claims or parties could be added. The court did not dismiss the proposed claims against Avila, the City, or the San Jose Police Department at this stage.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered Ms. Bohren to file the proposed third amended complaint separately by July 27, 2021.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.