Lee v. City of San Jose

Background

Jimmy K. Lee, who is representing himself, sued the City of San Jose and police officer Michael Roberson. Lee alleges that he was arrested on December 15, 2019, after an altercation in a Home Depot parking lot. He was arrested for making a death threat and assault under California law, spent a day in jail, and was released on bail. The state criminal charges were dismissed in October 2021 under a statute allowing dismissal in the furtherance of justice.

Lee alleges that Officer Roberson and other officers reviewed a cell-phone video of the incident but that Roberson failed to preserve it and intentionally omitted its existence from the police report. Lee also alleges that other exculpatory videos existed. The amended complaint asserted state-law false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and claims based on Brady v. Maryland concerning evidence disclosure.

Motions and analysis

The defendants moved to strike allegations concerning the cell-phone video and other alleged evidentiary misconduct. The court denied that request. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), material should be stricken only when it cannot possibly relate to the dispute and would cause significant prejudice. The court found that the defendants had not met that burden. The allegations could remain relevant to claims that were still active, including the Section 1983 malicious-prosecution claim against Officer Roberson.

The court granted in part the motion to dismiss as follows:

- State-law false arrest claim against the City: The claim may proceed. The court had previously found that the pleadings raised a factual question about whether the officers had probable cause. - Section 1983 claims against the City: Dismissed without further leave to amend. The court found that Lee had not plausibly alleged a widespread City policy or unwritten custom of making arrests without probable cause. The three additional case citations Lee provided did not establish such a custom. The court also found that Lee had not alleged a City policy or custom supporting his Brady-related allegations. - Section 1983 arrest claim against Officer Roberson: The motion to dismiss was denied as to this claim, which may proceed. Lee adequately alleged a warrantless arrest without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. - Other Section 1983 claims against Officer Roberson: Dismissed without further leave to amend. The court found that Lee’s allegations concerning evidentiary misconduct, intentional racial discrimination, witness tampering, false imprisonment, coerced confession, biased investigation, abuse of power, and abuse of process did not include enough specific facts to state claims. - Brady claims against the City and Officer Roberson: Dismissed without further leave to amend. The court declined to reconsider its earlier dismissal of the claim against Officer Roberson and found that the amended complaint still did not allege the City policy or custom required for a claim against the City. - State-law malicious-prosecution claim against the City and Officer Roberson: Dismissed without leave to amend, consistent with the court’s earlier ruling. - Section 1983 malicious-prosecution claim against the City: Dismissed without leave to amend because Lee did not allege that the prosecution resulted from a City policy or custom rather than only from Officer Roberson’s conduct. - Section 1983 malicious-prosecution claim against Officer Roberson: May proceed. The defendants did not move to dismiss this claim.

Disposition

The court stated that the following claims remain: the state-law false arrest claim against the City, the Section 1983 arrest claim against Officer Roberson, and the Section 1983 malicious-prosecution claim against Officer Roberson. All other claims were dismissed without leave to amend. The motion to strike was denied, and the motion to dismiss was granted in part. Judge Ange P. Casey Pitts signed the order on November 8, 2023.