Huipio v. City Of San Jose

Background

Giovanni Huipio alleged civil-rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from an attack by a police dog. According to the complaint, police officers responded to an alleged domestic-violence incident in September 2019. Several police teams gathered at the location, including Officer Michael Jeffrey and his police dog, Tex.

The complaint alleged that police found Huipio lying on the floor of a shed with his empty arms extended. It alleged that Officer Jeffrey ordered Tex to bite Huipio and then grabbed the dog’s collar, causing the dog to drag Huipio by his bitten leg. Huipio was taken to a hospital for treatment and allegedly continued to have visible scars more than a year later.

The City of San Jose and Officers Dustin Burnett, Steven Gaona, Bret Hatzenbuhler, Michael Jeffrey, Brandon Orlando, Jeffrey Profio, and Melissa Villasenor moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Claims Against Officers Profio, Hatzenbuhler, Villasenor, Orlando, Burnett, and Gaona

The court held that the complaint did not allege enough facts about six officers—Jeffrey Profio, Bret Hatzenbuhler, Melissa Villasenor, Brandon Orlando, Dustin Burnett, and Steven Gaona—to state plausible claims against them. Although the complaint alleged that Gaona, Villasenor, and Profio arrived at the scene, it did not allege that they used force. It did not identify conduct by Hatzenbuhler, Orlando, or Burnett connecting them to the incident.

The court also found it unclear whether Huipio claimed that these officers were directly involved or were liable as supervisors. The complaint’s general allegations that each defendant was responsible through negligence, supervision, agency, or other theories did not cure the lack of specific facts. The court granted dismissal of the claims against these six officers with leave to amend because it was not clear that amendment would be futile.

Claim Against Officer Jeffrey

The complaint specifically alleged that Officer Jeffrey ordered Tex to bite Huipio and caused the dog to drag him by his leg. The court explained that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from using more force than is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Taking Huipio’s allegations and the seriousness of his alleged injuries as true at this stage, the court found that they plausibly supported an excessive-force claim against Officer Jeffrey.

The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss the claims against Officer Jeffrey.

Claim Against the City

Huipio asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City. A municipality cannot be held responsible merely because it employs an officer; instead, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that a city policy or custom caused the constitutional violation. This type of municipal-liability claim is commonly called a Monell claim.

The court found the allegations against the City insufficient. The complaint did not adequately describe the substance of the City’s alleged policy concerning police-dog use or explain how that policy caused Huipio’s injury. The complaint referred to an earlier incident involving a police dog and a child, but did not show a connection between that incident, the alleged City policy, and Huipio’s incident. The allegations about police-dog practices and failures to train or supervise officers were also too conclusory and lacked the necessary factual links.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the claims against the City, with leave to amend.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to dismiss as to Officer Jeffrey. It granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend as to the City of San Jose and Officers Profio, Hatzenbuhler, Villasenor, Orlando, Burnett, and Gaona. Huipio could file an amended complaint within 14 days of the order.