Robertson v. City of Concord

Background

Joshua Robertson moved for permission to file a First Amended Complaint. The case concerns Concord Police Officer Ron Bruckert’s March 10, 2018 shooting of Robertson during an attempted traffic stop. The opinion states that Robertson had an outstanding arrest warrant, fled when officers attempted to apprehend him, and was shot in the back, causing catastrophic injuries. Robertson was charged with obstructing a police officer.

Robertson’s original complaint named Bruckert, the City of Concord, and unidentified defendants. It included a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to hold the City responsible for municipal policies or customs, commonly called a Monell claim. The parties stipulated to dismissing that claim and the City without prejudice in 2019. Robertson’s proposed amended complaint would add the City again and reassert the Monell claim.

The proposed complaint alleged that Robertson’s injuries resulted from City policies or customs involving excessive or unjustified force, unreasonable seizures, inadequate training and investigations, tolerance of officer misconduct, and related practices. It also alleged that the City and Police Chief Swanger ratified Bruckert’s conduct by accepting an internal-affairs investigation that exonerated him. Robertson relied on five earlier federal civil-rights lawsuits involving alleged excessive force by Concord police officers.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), courts generally should freely allow amendments unless the opposing party shows substantial prejudice, bad faith, undue delay, or that the proposed claim would be futile. A claim is futile when no set of facts could support it; this inquiry uses the same basic standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Bruckert had not shown substantial prejudice. The court concluded that delay and possible additional discovery, without more, were insufficient. It also found that the City would not be unfairly surprised because it had previously been named in the case and could look to its own records for information about prior complaints involving its police department.

The court also found that the proposed Monell claim was not futile. The allegations described the claimed customs and policies with enough specificity, identified five earlier incidents, and provided enough underlying facts to give the City fair notice and allow it to defend itself. The court further found that the ratification theory was adequately pleaded because the proposed complaint identified the alleged process by which the City and Chief Swanger accepted internal-affairs findings concerning Bruckert and other officers. The court treated those allegations as true for purposes of the amendment analysis.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Robertson’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. It ordered that the proposed amended complaint be filed no later than October 29, 2021.