Lee v. City of San Jose

Background

The case arose from a December 15, 2019 altercation in a Home Depot parking lot. According to the complaint, witnesses gave police conflicting accounts about whether Lee threatened to shoot the alleged victim, struck the alleged victim’s car with a plastic pipe, or tossed the pipe toward a Home Depot employee. Lee alleged that he did not make a death threat and that the alleged victim and an officer recognized that Lee might have said “I want to sue,” rather than “I want to shoot.”

Officer Michael Roberson and other officers arrested Lee for making a death threat and assault. Lee alleged that he was not told the reason for his arrest, spent one day in jail, and was released on bail. The District Attorney charged him with making a death threat. A state-court judge dismissed the case in October 2021 after previously finding that the prosecution had violated its obligation to disclose favorable evidence and that the investigation was biased.

Lee, representing himself, asserted four categories of claims: false arrest; claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for deprivation of constitutional or federal rights by someone acting under state law; a separate § 1983 claim based on suppression of favorable evidence; and state-law malicious prosecution. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

False Arrest

The court denied the motion to dismiss Lee’s false-arrest claim against the City. It explained that a warrantless arrest is justified when officers have probable cause, meaning reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed by the person arrested. The complaint alleged contradictory statements from witnesses about the alleged threat and the pipe. Because those allegations created a factual question about whether the officers had probable cause, the court could not resolve that issue on a motion to dismiss.

Section 1983 Claims Against the City

The court granted the motion to dismiss Lee’s § 1983 claims against the City with leave to amend. A municipality generally cannot be held liable merely because it employed an officer. Instead, a plaintiff must allege that a city policy or widespread custom caused the constitutional violation.

The court found that Lee had not adequately alleged a widespread City practice involving arrests without probable cause, mishandling evidence, discriminatory treatment, or inadequate police training. The court also found that Lee’s allegation about enforcing laws did not identify a constitutional violation. The separate § 1983 claim concerning favorable evidence was likewise dismissed against the City with leave to amend because the complaint did not allege facts establishing the required municipal policy or custom.

Section 1983 Claims Against Officer Roberson

The court denied the motion to dismiss Lee’s § 1983 claim against Roberson based on an arrest without probable cause. Because the court had already found that the complaint plausibly alleged a false arrest and a factual question about probable cause, it also found that Lee plausibly stated a constitutional claim concerning the arrest.

The court granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend as to Lee’s claims against Roberson concerning alleged evidentiary misconduct and the separate Brady claim. Lee alleged that Roberson failed to collect a jacket and returned the alleged victim’s cell phone, which contained a video. The court found the jacket allegation implausible as a claim involving favorable evidence. It also found that Lee’s own allegations contradicted the claim that Roberson deliberately or recklessly withheld the video from prosecutors.

The court dismissed Lee’s equal-protection claim based on treating him differently as an individual compared with the alleged victim, sometimes called a “class-of-one” theory, without leave to amend. The court found that Lee had not alleged that he was similarly situated to other suspects who were treated differently. The court granted leave to amend the traditional equal-protection claim based on intentional racial discrimination because the complaint did not adequately allege Roberson’s discriminatory intent. The court also granted leave to amend other alleged constitutional violations, which it found too conclusory and unclear.

Malicious Prosecution

The court granted without leave to amend the motion to dismiss Lee’s state-law malicious-prosecution claim against the City. It relied on California law providing immunity to public entities for malicious-prosecution claims. The court did not address Lee’s argument that the state-law immunity provision conflicted with the Fourteenth Amendment because he provided no further support for that argument.

The court granted Lee leave to add a federal § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim. The opinion does not decide whether such an amended claim would succeed.

Order

The court ordered the following dispositions:

- The motion to dismiss the false-arrest claim was denied. - The motion to dismiss Lee’s § 1983 claims against the City, including the separate evidence-suppression claim, was granted with leave to amend. - As to Roberson, the motion was denied for the claim based on arrest without probable cause; granted without leave to amend for the evidentiary-misconduct claim, separate Brady claim, and class-of-one equal-protection claim; and granted with leave to amend for the traditional equal-protection claim and other alleged constitutional violations. - The motion to dismiss the state-law malicious-prosecution claim was granted without leave to amend, while Lee was granted leave to add a federal § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim.

Lee was required to file any amended complaint within 21 days after entry of the order, by 11:59 p.m. on August 28, 2023.