Adjaye v. Cook

Background

Austin Richard Adjaye, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that he found an unattended black-and-brown backpack on a BART train in 2022, reported it to BART’s non-emergency number, and said he would remain near it until reaching his destination. Twenty-three minutes later, BART Police Officer Kevin Cook boarded the train, searched the unattended backpack, and asked to search Adjaye’s all-black backpack. Adjaye initially refused, but gave Cook the backpack after Cook said the request was not “a mere suggestion.” Cook opened its pockets, saw a government-building pass bearing Adjaye’s name and picture, and then left the train with the unattended backpack.

Adjaye later complained to the BART Police Department and submitted a written claim to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. The District denied the claim, while the BART Police Department’s internal-affairs investigation found that Adjaye’s allegations of an improper detention and search were sustained and that his biased-policing allegations were unfounded.

Adjaye sued the District, the BART Police Department, and Officer Cook under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against government actors for violating constitutional rights. He also asserted a claim under California’s Bane Act. His claims alleged unreasonable detention and search under the Fourth Amendment, retaliation for protected speech under the First Amendment, violation of the right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment, and failure by the District and BART Police Department to train Officer Cook under the municipal-liability framework established by Monell.

Service of Process

The District moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), which challenges the way a defendant was served. The United States Marshal successfully served Officer Cook and the BART Police Department but could not serve the District because it was no longer at the address Adjaye had provided.

The court granted the District’s Rule 12(b)(5) motion. All claims against the District were dismissed without prejudice to Adjaye attempting service again by providing the Marshal with an updated address. The court noted that the District had said it would accept service at the District Secretary’s Office and that it could alternatively waive service.

Rule 12(b)(6) Motion

The defendants also moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief. The court denied any motion to dismiss the BART Police Department on the ground that it could not be sued, explaining that California municipalities and police departments can be sued under § 1983.

The court held that Adjaye had stated a plausible Fourth Amendment claim. Although the defendants sought dismissal of a theory that Cook unlawfully seized Adjaye’s property, the court declined to dismiss individual theories within the claim at this stage. The motion to dismiss the Fourth Amendment claim was denied.

The court also held that Adjaye plausibly alleged First Amendment retaliation. Adjaye alleged that he reported the unattended backpack and that Cook then detained him and searched his backpack. The court concluded that this sequence could support an inference that the search was retaliatory and that a person of ordinary firmness might be discouraged from reporting unattended items in the future. The motion to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claim was denied.

The court dismissed the Fifth Amendment claim. It found that Adjaye had not alleged that Cook asked him to identify himself or answer questions, and had not alleged that any statement was used against him in a criminal case. Because Adjaye had not identified allegations that could cure the problem, the Fifth Amendment claim was dismissed with prejudice.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim. It concluded that the alleged sequence of reporting the backpack followed by detention and search could support an inference that Cook acted with the specific intent required for a Bane Act claim. The court also denied the request to dismiss Adjaye’s request for punitive damages because it was too early to determine whether those damages might be available.

Monell Claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Monell claim. Adjaye had not plausibly alleged that the District or BART Police Department knew, actually or constructively, that BART officers lacked training for responding to passengers who reported unattended backpacks. He also had not alleged similar incidents that would have put BART on notice that additional training was needed.

The court separately rejected Adjaye’s theory that BART failed to train officers to avoid racial bias. The complaint did not allege that racially biased policing resulted in an underlying constitutional violation, which was required to connect the alleged training failure to municipal liability.

The Monell claim against the District and BART Police Department was dismissed without prejudice. The Monell claim against Officer Cook was dismissed with prejudice because Monell liability applies to municipal entities, not individual officers.

Other Rulings and Disposition

The court granted Adjaye’s one-day extension of time to file his opposition and confirmed that it considered the opposition. It also granted the defendants’ unopposed request for judicial notice of two claim forms Adjaye submitted to the District and the District’s rejection of those claims.

Overall, the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(5) motion was granted as to service on the District, without prejudice to renewed service. The defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion was granted in part: it was granted as to the Fifth Amendment and Monell claims and denied as to the First and Fourth Amendment claims, the Bane Act claim, and the request for punitive damages. Adjaye was allowed to file an amended complaint by March 14, 2024.