Bell v. Lee

Background

Vincent Keith Bell has been a pretrial detainee in San Francisco County Jail since 2012. He alleges that jail officers used excessive force against him on August 13, 2013. Bell filed the original case pro se, and the court later appointed counsel for him.

The court had previously allowed Bell to file a second amended complaint adding the City and County of San Francisco as a defendant and asserting a Monell claim. A Monell claim is a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that a local government’s policy, custom, failure to train, or decision by a final policymaker caused a constitutional violation. The City moved to dismiss that claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that it was time-barred and that the complaint failed to state a claim. The City also moved to reopen discovery concerning the new claim.

Motion to Dismiss

The court denied dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds. Section 1983 claims in California generally use a two-year personal-injury limitations period, but federal law determines when the claim begins. The court explained that courts have disagreed about when a Monell claim accrues: some use the date of the underlying conduct, while others allow accrual when the plaintiff has notice that the conduct may reflect a broader pattern or practice. Because the Ninth Circuit had not resolved that issue and the time bar was not apparent from the complaint, the court would not dismiss the claim at that stage. The court stated that further discovery could provide a fuller factual record, including facts about when Bell knew or should have known that a City policy or custom caused his injury.

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss the Monell allegations for failure to state a claim. Bell’s complaint alleged that City staff misused safety cells for disciplinary purposes and were not trained to transport people with disabilities to safety cells. The court found these allegations conclusory and noted that the complaint did not provide details about other alleged instances of safety-cell misuse. The court also found it unclear which official with final policymaking authority Bell claimed had authorized or approved the conduct.

The court granted Bell leave to amend. If he pursues the Monell claim, he must allege more than isolated or sporadic incidents and must provide allegations showing practices of sufficient duration, frequency, and consistency to constitute a municipal policy or custom. The court stated that the relevant factual allegations should be included directly in the operative complaint rather than incorporated from earlier briefing.

Discovery and Schedule

The court granted the City’s motion to reopen discovery for Monell-related discovery and ordered the parties to meet and confer about its scope. The City was permitted to take a three-hour deposition of Bell, limited to the statute-of-limitations issue and facts underlying the Monell claim.

Regarding grievances about safety-cell transportation and misuse, the City was required to produce grievances from County Jail 3 covering 2008 through 2018. The parties were then ordered to meet and confer about producing 2013 grievances from the other jail facilities. The court also granted an administrative motion to seal specified material because of privacy and security concerns, and stated that it did not rely on the sealed information in deciding the motions.

The court adopted revised deadlines for fact discovery, expert reports, dispositive and evidentiary motions, opposition and reply briefs, and the hearing on those motions. The pretrial conference and trial dates remained unchanged. Judge Susan Illston signed the order on September 8, 2023.