Baca v. Anderson

Background

David Anthony Baca alleged that San Jose police officers assaulted and arrested him during a May 29, 2020 social-justice demonstration in San Jose. According to the complaint, Baca was recording the officers and shouted that one officer was a “racist cop.” As Baca approached the police line, Jonathan Anderson allegedly struck him with a baton, Michael Simonini allegedly restrained and dragged him, and Brett Weidner, Zachary Preuss, and other officers allegedly wrestled him to the ground, kicked and struck him, handcuffed him, and arrested him. Baca also alleged that the officers delayed medical assistance despite his injuries.

Baca sued Anderson, Simonini, Weidner, Preuss, the City of San Jose, and other defendants. His claims included First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims; civil-rights conspiracy claims; a claim against the City under the rule allowing municipal liability for unconstitutional policies or practices; and claims under California’s Ralph and Bane Acts. Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a legally valid claim. The motion challenged eleven of thirteen claims. Defendants conceded that Baca had stated a Fourth Amendment claim.

First Amendment claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss Baca’s First Amendment retaliation claim. To state that claim, Baca had to allege protected activity, conduct that could discourage an ordinary person from continuing that activity, and a connection between the protected activity and the defendants’ conduct.

The court held that Baca’s allegations plausibly connected his speech and his visible effort to record the police with the officers’ near-immediate assault and arrest. The court also noted Baca’s allegation that he was not breaking the law and that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. At this stage, the court accepted well-pleaded allegations as true and concluded that the claim could proceed against all four named officer defendants.

The court also rejected the officers’ qualified-immunity argument. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established legal right. The court concluded that, by May 2020, the Ninth Circuit had clearly established the right to record police activity in public and the right not to face police retaliation for protected speech or recording. The officers therefore had not shown that qualified immunity shielded them from Baca’s First Amendment claim.

Other federal claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss Baca’s third claim, which alleged that the officers deliberately or recklessly suppressed evidence by failing to activate or maintain their body cameras. The court held that Baca had not shown that body-camera footage was a constitutionally protected life, liberty, or property interest, and dismissed the claim without leave to amend because the problem was with the legal theory rather than the factual allegations.

The court dismissed Baca’s Equal Protection claim because the complaint did not allege enough facts to support an inference that the officers acted against him because of his race. Baca alleged that he is Hispanic and that he saw an unnamed officer aim at demonstrators who were likely recognizable as minorities, but he did not allege racial slurs or other facts showing discriminatory purpose by the named officers. The court granted leave to amend this claim.

The court dismissed Baca’s claims under federal civil-rights conspiracy statutes because he did not allege specific facts showing an agreement or meeting of the minds among the defendants. The court granted leave to amend these claims.

The court also dismissed the four theories of municipal liability against the City of San Jose. Baca’s allegations concerning an unconstitutional custom or practice, a final policymaker, ratification, and failure to train were too conclusory. He did not identify specific policy details, similar incidents, responsible policymakers, facts showing ratification, or facts describing deficient training and its connection to the alleged conduct. The court granted leave to amend these federal claims.

California-law claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss Baca’s claims under California’s Ralph and Bane Acts because they were barred by the California Government Claims Act. That law required Baca to file suit within six months after the City mailed its rejection of his claim. The rejection was mailed in January 2021, but Baca filed this lawsuit in April 2022. Because the claims were time-barred, the court did not reach defendants’ separate argument that the claims were inadequately pleaded. The court did not allow amendment of these state-law claims.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. He denied the motion as to Baca’s First Amendment claim, granted it as to the remainder of the challenged claims, allowed amendment of the federal claims at issue except claim three, and did not allow amendment of claims eleven and twelve under California law. Any amended complaint was due within twenty days of the order.