562 F.Supp.3d 382
N.D. Cal.2021Background
- May 29–31, 2020 protests in San Jose over George Floyd’s killing; plaintiffs are two organizations (NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley and San Jose Peace and Justice Center) and twelve individual demonstrators/legal observers/medics/journalists.
- Plaintiffs allege widespread police use of impact munitions, explosive/flash-bang devices, and chemical agents, plus baton strikes and mass arrests under a May 31 citywide curfew; several individuals allege serious injuries (e.g., eye loss, wounds from projectiles) and arrests without charge.
- Defendants: City of San Jose, Mayor Liccardo, City Manager Sykes, Police Chief Garcia, command officers (including Dwyer) and line officers (including Yuen, Curry, Delgado), plus Doe officers.
- Complaint asserts §1983 claims (First Amendment viewpoint and curfew challenges; Fourth Amendment excessive force and wrongful arrest; Fourteenth Amendment equal protection), ADA/RA disability claims, California tort and statutory claims (Bane Act, Ralph Act, assault/battery, false arrest, negligence), and Monell/supervisory theories.
- Procedural posture: defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and raised qualified immunity and municipal/supervisory-immunity defenses; court reviewed pleadings and denied dismissal of most federal and state claims but dismissed several claims with or without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity at pleading stage | Facts show constitutional violations; immunity is premature | Raise qualified immunity now to dismiss many claims | Court declined to resolve qualified immunity now; defer to summary judgment where factual record developed |
| Municipal/supervisory (Monell, failure-to-train, ratification) | City policies, last-minute changes, history of tolerance/ratification, and inadequate crowd-control training support Monell and supervisory liability | No municipal policy/custom; training adequate; supervisors not personally involved | Pleadings sufficient to survive dismissal on Monell/supervisory theories; factual record required to decide later |
| First Amendment — viewpoint discrimination (use of force) | Use of indiscriminate force against peaceful demonstrators shows animus/motivation to suppress BLM speech | Force motivated by legitimate law-enforcement aims, not speech animus | Claim survives pleading stage as to all defendants (viewpoint theory denied dismissal) |
| First Amendment — curfew restriction | Citywide curfew not narrowly tailored; insufficient alternatives; applied to protests | Curfew was content-neutral and justified by public-safety concerns (Menotti) | Curfew-related claim survives against City, Sykes, Liccardo, Garcia; dismissed without leave as to other individual defendants |
| Fourth Amendment — excessive force (seizure) | Impact munitions and chemical agents intentionally fired at protesters constitute seizures and unreasonable force | Many plaintiffs were not "seized"; Torres limits seizure analysis | Court follows Nelson; plaintiffs adequately alleged seizures and denies dismissal of excessive force claim |
| Fourth Amendment — wrongful arrest | Arrests pursuant to curfew/other conduct lacked probable cause for named arrestees | Arrests supported by probable cause given violence/looting context; qualified immunity alternative | Denied dismissal; probable cause and immunity are factual mixed questions for later stages |
| Fourteenth Amendment — equal protection | Enforcement targeted accountability protests, showing discriminatory effect/purpose | No facts showing targeting based on plaintiffs’ race or protected class | Dismissed with prejudice (insufficient pleading of race/discriminatory purpose) |
| Freedom of movement (standalone) | Curfew deprived fundamental right of movement | No separate standalone cause of action; duplicative of other claims | Dismissed with prejudice as duplicative and unsupported as standalone claim |
| Failure to intervene | Officers had opportunities to prevent constitutional violations | Qualified immunity argues no clearly established violation yet | Denied dismissal; survives to discovery (opportunity-to-intervene factual inquiry) |
| Conspiracy (§1983) | Coordinated plan to deprive rights | Allegations are conclusory; no meeting-of-minds pleaded | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead agreement; may be reasserted if discovery yields facts |
| ADA / Rehabilitation Act (disability accommodations) | Cartwright’s mobility/medical needs required reasonable accommodations during crowd-control/arrest | No precedent extending ADA liability here beyond limited contexts; accommodations not feasible | Denied dismissal as to Cartwright v. City (factual inquiry into reasonable accommodations) |
| State-law claims (Bane Act, Ralph Act, assault/battery, false arrest, negligence) | Parallel to federal claims; provide additional remedies | State-law immunity/discretionary-act defenses apply | Court denied dismissal of these state claims where their federal counterparts survive; discretionary-act immunity deferred to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishes qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (framework for addressing qualified immunity questions)
- Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy, custom, or deliberate indifference)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (failure-to-train as basis for municipal liability requires deliberate indifference)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment excessive-force reasonableness test)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleadings standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions need factual support for plausibility)
- Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989 (2021) (seizure analysis where force does not immediately subdue)
- Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2012) (projectiles fired into crowd can constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure)
- Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (curfew/security-zone analysis on summary judgment)
- Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2018) (cautions against deciding qualified immunity at pleading stage)
- Martinez v. City of Santa Rosa, 499 F. Supp. 3d 748 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (department-wide protest response supports inference of supervisory/municipal responsibility)
- Sheehan v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2014) (ADA applies where failure to accommodate a disability during law enforcement process causes added harm)
- Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, 663 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2011) (probable cause for warrantless arrests requires mixed fact-law inquiry)