Keith Bohren v. City of San Jose

Background

Keith Bohren brought four claims arising from an alleged wrongful arrest. The opinion states that the court had previously dismissed all claims against the County of Santa Clara with prejudice and allowed an amended complaint against the San Jose police defendants. The motion addressed parts of the fourth amended complaint.

Claims Two and Four

Defendants argued that the second cause of action—a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on an alleged Fourteenth Amendment violation—and the fourth cause of action, intentional infliction of emotional distress, lacked nonconclusory facts supporting their required elements.

The court agreed. It explained that its earlier finding that proposed amendments would not be futile did not mean the claims were adequately pleaded under the federal pleading rules, particularly because the court had not previously considered defendants’ current arguments. The court therefore dismissed claims two and four, with leave to amend.

Additional Officers and Claims

Defendants argued that the complaint improperly added five officers and additional claims against Officer Avila, who had previously been named. The court disagreed as to the officers previously identified as unnamed defendants. It held that replacing unnamed defendants with their actual names did not add parties and that the claims in the earlier proposed complaint had referred to those defendants in the claim allegations, even though they were not listed in the caption.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the officers who had previously been identified as unnamed defendants. It stated, however, that defendants could raise in a later motion whether an amended complaint improperly added new claims or parties rather than merely supplying names for previously identified unnamed defendants.

Class Allegations

Defendants asked the court to strike the class allegations. Bohren agreed and stated that she would proceed individually. The court struck the class allegations with prejudice and ordered that the case proceed as an individual action only. The court declined to strike the allegation that Bohren had been housed in the County jail with men.

Other Orders and Disposition

The opinion states that Bohren’s former counsel had died and that new counsel had appeared only to represent her in ongoing settlement discussions. The court expressed concern that Bohren’s representation during the motion briefing may not have been adequate. It stayed the case until April 29, 2022, except for ongoing settlement discussions, and vacated the April 21, 2022 status conference so Bohren could obtain full legal representation or decide to proceed without a lawyer.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the motion to dismiss was granted in part with leave to amend as to the second and fourth causes of action. Bohren was required to file a status report on April 29, 2022, concerning legal representation. After obtaining representation, Bohren could file an amended complaint within 21 days after the stay was lifted, but could not add new parties or claims without court permission or defendants’ consent.