Sterling v. Antioch

Background

Frank Sterling brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing lawsuits for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state law. He alleged that Antioch police officers unlawfully arrested him and used excessive force after he recorded officers arresting another protester. Sterling alleged that officers grabbed him, tackled him, dragged him, piled on top of him, and used a taser on him twice.

Sterling asserted three claims: First Amendment retaliatory arrest against unidentified officers; Fourth Amendment excessive force against unidentified officers; and municipal and supervisory liability against the City of Antioch, Chief Tammany Brooks, and unidentified defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the municipal-liability claim and the claims against Chief Brooks under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Municipal-liability claim

Sterling argued that the Antioch Police Department had a custom of lawlessness and disregard for the law. He pointed to allegations that the department had a culture of failing to hold officers accountable and to a news report stating that 14% of Antioch police officers were under investigation for criminal activity.

The court held that these allegations were not specific enough to support municipal liability under the rule established in Monell v. Department of Social Services. A city can be liable under that rule only when its own policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found that Sterling alleged only his own incident and did not identify specific other incidents showing a widespread and established practice. It also found that the reported investigations concerned alleged drug abuse and other conduct unrelated to retaliatory arrest or excessive force. Sterling did not allege facts connecting those investigations to his incident beyond statements made “on information and belief.”

The court also rejected a ratification theory. Sterling alleged that Chief Brooks instructed officers to target protesters, but the court explained that ratification occurs after the constitutional violation and therefore cannot be based on instructions allegedly given before the officers acted. The court dismissed Sterling’s Monell claim with leave to amend.

Claim against Chief Brooks

The court explained that a supervisor may be liable under § 1983 when the supervisor personally participates in a constitutional violation or when there is a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s conduct and the violation. Sterling alleged that the officers targeted protesters at Chief Brooks’s instruction and that Brooks set a series of events in motion.

The court found those allegations conclusory and unsupported by specific facts. The complaint did not provide facts showing that Brooks personally participated in the arrest or use of force, instructed the officers to target protesters, or otherwise caused the alleged violations. The court therefore dismissed the supervisory-liability claim against Chief Brooks with leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Sterling’s Monell claim and supervisory-liability claim were dismissed with leave to amend by April 20, 2023. The order did not state that the motion dismissed Sterling’s separate claims against the unidentified officers for retaliatory arrest or excessive force.