McKnight v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Defendants employed by the City and County of San Francisco detained and arrested Kareem McKnight and injected her with a sedative after she participated in a group protest at the Chase Center during a Golden State Warriors game. After an earlier order granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss, McKnight filed a Third Amended Complaint. Defendants again moved to dismiss.

The motion challenged four matters: whether McKnight had adequately alleged claims against San Francisco Police Department Captain Amy Hurwitz; whether McKnight stated a false-imprisonment claim; whether her claim under California Civil Code section 51.7, known as the Ralph Civil Rights Act, was adequately pleaded; and whether two newly added defendants could remain in the complaint without court permission.

Claims Against Hurwitz

The court had previously dismissed McKnight’s claims against Hurwitz based on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, negligence, assault and battery, and California’s Bane Act because McKnight had not alleged enough facts showing that Hurwitz was a decision-maker or an integral participant in administering the sedative.

In the Third Amended Complaint, McKnight alleged that Hurwitz threatened her with a sedative, participated in the decision to handcuff and arrest her, characterized her as “borderline violent,” and allowed a white protestor to leave. McKnight also alleged that Hurwitz misrepresented her shoulder injury and mental state to paramedics, leading to the decision to inject her.

The court held that these allegations went beyond merely showing that Hurwitz’s conduct was part of the chain of events. At the pleading stage, they plausibly supported an inference that Hurwitz set in motion acts by others that could cause the alleged constitutional injury. The court said the other defendants’ actions, and whether Hurwitz was still present when McKnight was restrained and injected, could be examined in discovery and decided by the factfinder. The court therefore denied the motion concerning Hurwitz. It also allowed the negligence, assault-and-battery, and Bane Act claims against Hurwitz to survive because defendants’ challenge to those claims depended on the same argument.

False Imprisonment

McKnight brought a false-imprisonment claim instead of the previously dismissed kidnapping claim. The court explained that a civil-rights claim for false arrest or imprisonment requires facts showing that the arresting officer lacked probable cause. Probable cause exists when the known circumstances would lead a prudent person to conclude there was a fair probability that the person had committed or was committing a crime.

McKnight argued that the claim was based not on the arrest itself but on being strapped to a gurney and given a sedative because of Hurwitz’s alleged misrepresentations. The court rejected that theory at the pleading stage, concluding that McKnight still had not alleged facts undermining probable cause for a criminal-trespass arrest based on her own allegations about protesting and continuing to chant after being removed from the arena. The court dismissed the false-imprisonment claim with prejudice.

Ralph Civil Rights Act Claim

The Ralph Act protects people from violence or threats of violence based on characteristics including race, gender, and religion. The court had previously dismissed McKnight’s claim because her earlier complaint did not plausibly show that race, rather than her conduct, caused the alleged treatment.

The Third Amended Complaint alleged that defendants racially profiled McKnight, that Hurwitz allowed a white protestor to leave without citation or arrest, and that McKnight acted similarly to the white protestor before defendants escalated the encounter by threatening an injection. The court said the allegations were sparse but sufficient to make the claim plausible. Whether race partly caused McKnight’s arrest and injection, and whether the white protestor was treated differently because of race, could be explored in discovery and tested on a later request for judgment based on the evidence. The court denied the motion concerning the Ralph Act claim.

Newly Added Defendants

McKnight added SFFD employee Felicia Lee and SFPD officer Ryan Buckley to the Third Amended Complaint without first seeking leave to amend. The court held that this was improper and struck Lee and Buckley from the complaint. It gave McKnight 20 days from the date of the order to file a motion seeking permission to add them.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. It denied the motion regarding Hurwitz and the Ralph Act claim, dismissed the false-imprisonment claim with prejudice, struck Lee and Buckley from the Third Amended Complaint, and gave McKnight leave to seek permission to add those individuals.