3:25-cv-04341
N.D. Cal.Sep 8, 2025Background
- In April 2019 Brentwood police officers (Greene, Morrison, Rezentes) entered Jeremy Terrell’s parents’ home at ~2:00 a.m., a K-9 was present, officers went upstairs to Terrell’s locked bedroom, ordered him—while nude—to open the door at gunpoint, handcuffed him, searched the room, then released and apologized once dispatch corrected a suspect description.
- Terrell alleges long-term psychological injury (hospitalization, inpatient psychiatric treatment, PTSD, inability to review the police report or pursue counsel) and did not file suit until April 2025 (state-court filing April 8, 2025; federal complaint removed and amended).
- FAC pleads: (Count One) § 1983 claim against officers for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations; (Count Two) Monell claim against the City; (Count Three) Bane Act; (Count Four) state-law trespass.
- City moved to dismiss arguing federal claims are time-barred and state-law claims fail for lack of Government Claims Act (GCA) presentation; also moved to strike commentary and to consolidate a related state action.
- Court denied default against officers (motions to dismiss construed as filed by all defendants), denied motion to strike and consolidation, held: state-law claims survive, most § 1983 claims dismissed as time-barred but dismissal without prejudice (Fourteenth Amendment subsection dismissed with prejudice), Monell and some § 1983 Fourth Amendment allegations dismissed without prejudice to amend, Bane Act survives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry of default against officer defendants | Officers never filed a separate responsive pleading; default warranted under Rule 55(a) | Motions to dismiss were filed by counsel for all defendants; officers have participated and would show good cause to set aside any default | Denied — motions construed as filed by all defendants; default would be set aside for good cause |
| Motion to strike portions of FAC | Commentary about removal and defendants’ statute‑of‑limitations posture relevant to credibility and Monell | Statements are immaterial and prejudicial, should be struck under Rule 12(f) | Denied — strike disfavored; no showing of prejudice |
| Timeliness of § 1983 claims (accrual and tolling) | Equitable tolling / tolling under Cal. CCP §352(a) due to prolonged psychological incapacity; delayed discovery until Dec. 2024 | Claims accrued April 16, 2019; federal accrual rule controls; plaintiff fails to plead continuous incapacity sufficient for §352(a) or timely notice for California equitable tolling | §1983 claims based on April 2019 incident are time‑barred and dismissed without prejudice (except Fourteenth Amendment claim dismissed with prejudice); plaintiff may amend limitedly to plead tolling facts |
| Monell municipal liability (custom, failure to train/discipline, ratification) | City maintained policy/custom permitting warrantless entries and excessive force; concealed misconduct records; chiefs ratified conduct | Plaintiff pleads too few and insufficiently specific prior incidents; fails to allege deliberate indifference or concrete ratification | Dismissed without prejudice as pleaded — allegations (two incidents involving same officer/K‑9) insufficient to plausibly show longstanding practice or deliberate indifference, but plaintiff may amend |
| California Government Claims Act (GCA) pre‑presentation requirement | Not required because primary relief sought is declaratory/injunctive (non‑pecuniary) | GCA requires timely presentation before suing public entities | Denied — GCA presentation not required for primarily equitable relief per Minsky; state claims survive |
| Bane Act claim | Bane Act claim parallels §1983 Fourth Amendment claim and pleads defendants acted with specific intent | Defendants say coercion alleged is only coercion inherent in the seizure and insufficient under Shoyoye | Denied — Bane Act survives; plaintiff need not allege coercion separate from the alleged Fourth Amendment violation when specific intent is alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility/Twombly standard)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability principles)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use‑of‑force claims analyzed under Fourth Amendment)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (state statute of limitations applies to §1983 actions)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (need for pattern to show municipal deliberate indifference)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (failure‑to‑train deliberate indifference standard)
- Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021 (accrual / constructive notice for search/seizure claims)
- United States v. Signed Pers. Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085 (factors for setting aside default entry)