Robertson v. Lopez
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-04030
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Robertson v. Lopez, Magistrate Judge Van Keulen ordered another amended complaint after screening found missing facts for claims against local entities.
Erine Robertson was given another opportunity to amend her claims. The order specifically addressed the allegations against Officer Lopez, the San Jose Police Department, and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department.
What happened
Erine Robertson, representing herself, sued Officer Lopez, the San Jose Police Department, and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department over an alleged improper arrest and detention. The court had allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees but found problems with her original complaint.
Robertson filed an amended complaint that addressed most earlier problems, including information about Officer Lopez and separate claims. But the court found that it did not allege facts showing that either local governmental entity had a policy, practice, or custom that caused a constitutional violation.
The court gave Robertson permission to file a second amended complaint by December 15, 2023, and listed information it should include. Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen also directed her to remove Santa Clara Valley Medical Center as a defendant from one claim.
The detailed version
- Robertson v. Lopez · No. 3:23-cv-04030
- Charles Breyer
- Nov. 15, 2023
Background
Erine Robertson, appearing without a lawyer, filed a civil complaint concerning an alleged incident beginning August 12, 2021. She claimed that she was improperly arrested and detained at a hospital and two jail facilities. The court granted her request to proceed without paying filing fees under the federal filing-fee statute for indigent litigants, 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The court’s first screening order found that the original complaint did not state a claim for relief. It identified problems with Robertson’s identification of the defendant officers, the relationship between the individual and entity defendants, and the organization and legal basis of her causes of action. The court allowed her to amend, and she timely filed a First Amended Complaint.
Further Screening
The court found that the First Amended Complaint addressed most of the deficiencies identified earlier. It provided additional allegations about Officer Lopez, improved the organization of the claims, and organized the causes of action by claim rather than by defendant.
The court nevertheless found that a critical element was missing. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a local governmental entity may be liable for a constitutional violation when a policy, practice, or custom amounts to deliberate indifference to constitutional rights and causes the violation. This type of claim is commonly called a Monell claim. The court held that the amended complaint did not allege facts suggesting that the San Jose Police Department or the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department had such a policy, practice, or custom.
Order
The court granted Robertson leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by December 15, 2023. It directed her to include the allegations from the First Amended Complaint, add information from the original complaint about filing a claim with the City, if applicable, and delete Santa Clara Valley Medical Center as a defendant from the Third Claim because the First Amended Complaint did not identify that entity as a defendant. The order also provided information about the Federal Pro Se Program.
The opinion is a further screening order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), addressing whether the pleadings adequately state claims. It does not decide the ultimate merits of Robertson’s allegations. The order was signed by Susan Van Keulen, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.