Rubalcava v. City Of San Jose
5:20-cv-04191
| N.D. Cal. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- In April 2002 Raymond Rodriguez was shot in a drive-by; police investigated as a gang-related shooting and later arrested Lionel Rubalcava, a Norteño with an alibi.
- Rubalcava was convicted at trial based largely on eyewitness identifications and gang-related testimony; he served over 17 years before the conviction was vacated and a finding of actual innocence entered in 2019.
- The complaint alleges SJPD officers and Santa Clara County investigators fabricated evidence, coerced and bribed witnesses, created a false "gang relatedness" report, and concealed witness payments and exculpatory statements.
- Rubalcava sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (fabrication of evidence, Brady/withholding, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, supervisory liability, failure to intervene) and asserted Monell and state-law claims against the City and County.
- The City and County moved to dismiss. The Court denied judicial notice/incorporation of extensive trial materials offered by defendants and evaluated claims on the complaint alone.
- The Court granted in part and denied in part the City’s motion (many individual officers survived; supervisory and Monell allegations required amendment) and granted the County’s motion in part (some claims dismissed without leave; Monell and failure-to-intervene claims dismissable with leave to amend).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fabrication-of-evidence against investigating officers | Rubalcava: detectives fabricated reports, coerced IDs, and manufactured a fake gang-war theory that caused his conviction | City: trial record undermines coercion/fabrication allegations (and moved to dismiss all claims) | Fabrication claim survives as to Perez, Fonua, Spillman, Nieves, Avalos; dismissed as to some supervisors (Tibbet, Torres, Hafley) with leave to amend |
| Withholding exculpatory/impeachment evidence (Brady) | Rubalcava: officers suppressed witness statements identifying a Sureño and concealed payments/improper benefits to witnesses | City: some defendants had no role in suppression; extrinsic record shows contrary facts | Brady claim survives as to Perez, Fonua, Spillman, Nieves; dismissed (with leave) as to Avalos, Baldal and several supervisors for insufficient pleading |
| Malicious prosecution and conspiracy | Rubalcava: officers caused prosecution through fabrication and concerted misconduct | City: same factual defects as fabrication; independent probable cause exists | Malicious prosecution and conspiracy survive against the same core investigators (Perez, Fonua, Spillman, Nieves, Avalos); several other defendants dismissed with leave to amend |
| Supervisory liability and failure-to-intervene | Rubalcava: supervisors knew of and ratified misconduct and failed to prevent it | City: allegations are conclusory, often pleaded "on information and belief," and lack specific facts showing knowledge/opportunity to intervene | Supervisory and failure-to-intervene claims dismissed as pleaded; plaintiff granted leave to plead specific facts connecting supervisors to misconduct |
| Monell liability (City and County) | Rubalcava: City failed to train re: IDs and Brady; County had deficient procedures for witness-protection/payments that led to Brady violations | Defendants: Monell allegations are conclusory, lack facts showing notice, pattern, or that policy was the moving force | Monell claims dismissed with leave to amend as to City; County Monell claim dismissed with leave to amend for lack of factual notice/allegations; some state-law claims as to County voluntarily conceded/dismissed |
| Qualified immunity for individual officers | Rubalcava: misconduct violated clearly established rights (fabrication, Brady) | City: no controlling precedent pre-2002 that would have put officers on notice | Court denied qualified-immunity dismissal: pre-2002 law clearly established fabrication and Brady duties |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (government must disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (fabrication claim; coercive techniques and continuing investigation despite indicators of innocence)
- Spencer v. Peters, 857 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2017) (elements of deliberate fabrication claim under § 1983)
- Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) (limits on judicial notice and incorporation-by-reference at pleading stage)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires knowledge/acquiescence)
- Blantz v. CDCR, 727 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2013) (conclusory "information and belief" allegations insufficient for supervisory liability)
- Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, 715 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 2013) (Monell claim based on failure to disclose benefits to witnesses)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (failure-to-train as basis for municipal liability)