McQuarters v. Borgna

Background

Orlando McQuarters sued Oakland Police Officer Giovanna Borgna under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. He alleged that Borgna struck him with a police car while he was riding a bicycle, causing him to hit a parked car and fall. He also alleged that officers handcuffed him, placed him in a police car, photographed him, took him to Highland Hospital, and later told him he was free to leave. His original complaint asserted excessive force and false arrest claims.

McQuarters moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 for permission to amend his complaint. He sought to add Oakland Police Officers Scott Lamphiear, James Yamashita, and Alexander Molina as defendants, based on their alleged involvement in the same incident. He also sought to add the City of Oakland and assert a claim that the city failed to train and supervise its officers regarding when officers may use patrol vehicles to alter bicyclists’ paths. Officer Borgna filed a statement of non-opposition.

Legal standard

Rule 15 generally directs courts to allow amendments freely unless there is strong evidence of bad faith, undue delay, substantial prejudice, futility, or a previous amendment. An amendment is futile if no set of facts under the proposed allegations could support a valid claim. The court evaluated those factors and applied the usual pleading standard, which asks whether the allegations provide fair notice and plausibly support relief.

Court’s analysis

The court found no evidence that McQuarters acted in bad faith or sought amendment for a dilatory purpose. It also found no indication that he knew, or should have known, all four officers’ identities when he filed the original complaint. Because the motion was filed within the deadline in the case-management order, the court found no undue delay.

The court gave substantial weight to prejudice to the opposing party. It found no prejudice because Borgna did not oppose the motion, several months remained for discovery, and the amendment would not affect other case-management deadlines.

The court concluded that adding the three officers would not be futile. McQuarters alleged that Lamphiear, Yamashita, and Molina participated in the same incident that allegedly deprived him of constitutional rights.

The court also found that the proposed claim against Oakland was plausible. A local government may be liable under § 1983 when an official policy or custom causes a constitutional injury; it is not liable merely because one of its employees allegedly caused an injury. The court determined that McQuarters’s allegations about Oakland’s failure to train and supervise officers concerning the use of patrol vehicles applied to officers trained under the alleged policy and were sufficient to state a plausible failure-to-train claim at this stage. The court acknowledged that a single incident is ultimately insufficient by itself to establish this type of liability, but found the proposed allegations sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

The court further noted that McQuarters had not previously sought permission to amend, which favored allowing the amendment.

Disposition

The court GRANTED McQuarters’s motion to amend. It ordered him to file the amended complaint as a separate docket entry by January 4, 2023. The court also vacated the January 12, 2023 hearing. This order concerned permission to amend the pleadings and did not resolve the ultimate merits of the claims.