Shiheiber v. Hernandez

Background

Ibrahim Nimer Shiheiber, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment based on a January 24, 2019 encounter with San Francisco police officers. He alleged unlawful detention, an illegal search, and excessive force against Officer Hernandez. He also asserted a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against the City of San Francisco under Monell, which is the rule allowing a municipality to be liable when an official policy or established custom causes a constitutional violation.

Shiheiber alleged that officers detained him after he declined an order to approach them, pushed him, searched or attempted to search him without consent, took him to the ground, and handcuffed him. He also alleged that, after the incident, employees at two police locations directed him elsewhere or failed to help him file a citizen’s complaint. He claimed this conduct showed a City custom or practice of discouraging complaints against police. He further relied on a comment by an officer who arrived after the alleged use of force.

The opinion explains that Shiheiber had named the wrong Officer Hernandez. At the hearing, he clarified that he intended to sue the male officer, identified in the opinion as Officer Hernandez with badge number 307, rather than the female officer with badge number 4309. The opinion also states that defendants’ counsel identified the male officer as Brett Hernandez. The court permitted Shiheiber to amend to name the correct officer.

The City’s Motion

The City moved to dismiss only the Monell claim. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court tests whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true at this stage but does not accept unsupported legal conclusions. The complaint must include enough factual matter to make liability plausible rather than merely possible.

A city cannot be held responsible under § 1983 solely because it employs an officer who allegedly violated someone’s constitutional rights. Instead, the plaintiff must allege facts showing that a City policy, longstanding custom, decision by an official with final policymaking authority, or ratification of an unconstitutional action caused the injury.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Shiheiber’s allegations did not plausibly establish a longstanding City policy or custom. His allegations about being treated rudely or being sent between locations concerned his own experience. The court concluded that these allegations did not show that other people were subjected to similar treatment or otherwise support an inference of a widespread practice.

The court also held that the isolated comment by an officer who arrived after the alleged use of force, although troubling if true, was not enough by itself to establish a City policy or custom. In addition, Shiheiber did not allege facts showing that the comment or the employees’ conduct reflected a policy that caused Officer Hernandez to use excessive force. The court noted that Shiheiber ultimately reached the Department of Accountability and successfully filed his complaint, which also undermined any possible inference that the alleged practice prevented him from filing one.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion and dismissed the Monell claim against the City for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court allowed Shiheiber to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies, including naming the correct officer and adequately alleging the City’s liability. The order did not resolve the merits of the allegations against the individual officer in the City’s motion. The amended complaint was due no later than December 10, 2021.