Bazurto v. City of Gilroy Police Department

Background

Pedro Bazurto sued the City of Gilroy Police Department, along with unnamed defendants identified as Does 1 through 50. He alleged that officers forced open a restroom door, dragged him outside, punched him, used a taser on his ear, handcuffed him face-down, and had a police canine bite his calf for more than a minute. He alleged that he did not resist or threaten the officers and that they had mistaken him for a person they were pursuing.

Bazurto asserted Fourth Amendment claims against the unnamed officers for unlawful detention and arrest and excessive force. He also asserted a municipal-liability claim against the Gilroy Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, commonly called a Monell claim. That claim alleged unconstitutional policies or customs involving excessive force, detentions and arrests without adequate justification, inadequate training, and ratification of the officers’ conduct. Bazurto also asserted California claims for false arrest, battery, negligence, and violations of the Bane Act.

The department moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim. The department argued that the Monell claim was inadequately pleaded and that the state-law claims were barred because Bazurto submitted his claim under California’s Government Claims Act too late.

Monell Claim

The court dismissed Bazurto’s third claim for relief against the department. To establish municipal liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a constitutional violation, a municipal policy, practice, or custom, deliberate indifference to constitutional rights, and a causal connection between that policy and the alleged violation.

The court held that the complaint did not contain factual allegations plausibly showing that the department maintained the alleged policies, practices, or customs beyond Bazurto’s own encounter with the officers. The court also found insufficient allegations supporting the failure-to-train theory and the theory that the department ratified the officers’ conduct. The allegation that none of the officers was disciplined did not adequately support ratification.

The court dismissed the third claim for relief and permitted Bazurto to amend it because it did not appear that amendment would be futile.

State-Law Claims

The court denied the department’s motion to dismiss Bazurto’s state-law claims. California’s Government Claims Act generally requires a claim for damages against a public entity or its employees to be submitted within six months after the claim accrues. The court noted that Bazurto’s claim contained an incorrect incident date and that he acknowledged submitting it more than six months after the actual January 28, 2020 incident.

However, the court concluded that the claims could not be dismissed as untimely as a matter of law at the pleading stage. Bazurto plausibly alleged that the City knew or should have known the claim concerned the January 28, 2020 incident. If the City knew the claim was late, it may have been required to notify him of that problem; failure to provide the required notice can waive a timeliness defense. The court also noted that the department’s contrary account was unsupported by evidence properly before the court and that any factual dispute about waiver could not be resolved on this motion.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted the department’s motion to dismiss Bazurto’s third claim for relief, with leave to amend. She denied the department’s motion to dismiss Bazurto’s state-law claims. Bazurto was permitted to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies within 21 days of the order. The order did not resolve Bazurto’s claims against the unnamed individual defendants.