Sanchez v. City Of San Jose

Background

The City of San Jose moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a legal claim. The motion targeted the Sixth Claim in Edgar Sanchez’s Second Amended Complaint. That claim alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

The court had previously dismissed the ADA claim in Sanchez’s original complaint but allowed him to amend. Sanchez’s theory was that police may be liable under the ADA if, during an investigation or arrest, they fail to reasonably accommodate a person’s disability and thereby cause greater injury or indignity.

Reasoning

The court said the Second Amended Complaint did not fix the pleading deficiencies identified in the earlier order. The earlier complaint alleged only that Sanchez experienced seizures. The amended complaint added allegations that Sanchez had epilepsy and that officers acknowledged a disability during the arrest.

The court found these additions insufficient. It said the complaint alleged only that Sanchez told the officers he had seizures, not that he told them he had epilepsy. It also found the allegation that the officers acknowledged his seizures conclusory and unsupported by factual detail. As a result, the complaint did not plausibly allege that Sanchez had an ADA disability known to the officers or that the officers acted with deliberate indifference to that disability.

Ruling

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim. Because Sanchez had received two opportunities to plead a plausible claim, the court noted that dismissal without leave to amend would typically be appropriate. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the claim without prejudice. It stated that Sanchez could seek permission to file another amended ADA claim if discovery revealed facts that might plausibly establish an ADA violation. Judge James Donato signed the order on June 15, 2022.