Harper v. City of San Jose

Background

The City of San Jose, Edgardo Garcia, Jason Dwyer, Christopher Sciba, and Jared Yuen filed a partial motion to dismiss Timothy Harper’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule tests whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but did not accept conclusory allegations or unreasonable inferences.

Claims Dismissed Without Leave to Amend

The court dismissed the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities without leave to amend because those claims were duplicative of the claims against the City, which was also a defendant.

The court also dismissed claims 1 and 2 against the City without leave to amend. Those claims asserted violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the First and Fourth Amendments. The court held that, as pleaded against the City, they were duplicative of claim 3, a municipal-liability claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The court stated that the City could be liable through a Monell claim, not through the type of § 1983 theory asserted against an individual.

Claims Dismissed With Leave to Amend

The court dismissed Harper’s federal claims against Chief Edgardo Garcia in his personal capacity with leave to amend. Harper had not alleged sufficient non-conclusory facts showing Garcia’s personal involvement in the protest response. The court also rejected the argument that Garcia’s post-incident statement describing Yuen as a “good kid” who had made a mistake amounted to ratification of Yuen’s conduct. The court stated that Harper needed to allege either Garcia’s personal involvement or his awareness of inadequate training on less-lethal weapons combined with a failure to correct the problem, as well as a causal connection between Garcia’s conduct and the alleged constitutional violations.

The court dismissed Harper’s federal claims against Sergeant Christopher Sciba in his personal capacity with leave to amend. Harper relied on Sciba’s role in preparing police training materials about less-lethal weapons, but the court found no sufficient causal connection between those materials and Yuen’s conduct. The court noted, for example, that the complaint did not allege that Yuen had viewed the materials.

The court dismissed Harper’s Monell claim against the City with leave to amend. A Monell claim seeks to hold a municipality responsible for a constitutional violation caused by an official policy, custom, ratification, or deliberately indifferent failure to train. The court found that Harper had not adequately alleged a formal policy, a widespread custom or practice, ratification, or the facts needed to show deliberate indifference to a need for different or additional training.

The court also dismissed Harper’s claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, known as the Bane Act, against Garcia, Captain Jason Dwyer, and Sciba with leave to amend. The court stated that supervisory liability does not apply to a Bane Act claim and that Harper therefore needed to allege direct action by each individual defendant against him.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court denied the motion to dismiss Harper’s federal claims against Dwyer in his personal capacity. Harper alleged that Dwyer was present at the protest, made statements about entering a “warzone” and making an immediate decision, and had no regrets about his decisions. The court found that these allegations, together with a reasonable inference that Dwyer gave commands generally followed by Yuen and other officers, were sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court also denied the motion to dismiss Harper’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Yuen. It found sufficient allegations that Yuen acted outrageously by firing a rubber bullet at Harper while Harper was backing away, acted intentionally or recklessly regarding the possibility of emotional distress, and caused Harper’s distress.

Other Ruling and Disposition

The defendants briefly raised qualified immunity for Sciba in one sentence of their opening brief. The court declined to decide qualified immunity based on that limited presentation.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the motion be granted in part with leave to amend in part and denied in part. Harper was required to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The court stated that failure to meet the deadline or cure the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of the deficient claims with prejudice. The order did not itself state that all dismissed claims were dismissed with prejudice.