# Barijaos > District Court, N.D. California · May 5, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11373727 ## Case - **Full name:** Jose Barijaos v. Sonoma County District Attorney's Office, et al. - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** May 5, 2026 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11373727 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSE BARIJAOS, Case No. 25-cv-08501-JD 8 Plaintiff, SECOND ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9 10 SONOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pro se plaintiff Jose Barijaos sued the City of Petaluma and the Petaluma Police 14 Department (together Petaluma), the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office (Sonoma), and 15 unnamed officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other state and federal laws in connection with his 16 arrest and prosecution for a fight with a coworker in October 2024. Dkt. No. 1. The Court 17 dismissed the prior complaint because it “barely alleges anything at all in the way of facts,” and 18 was almost entirely “purely conclusory allegations about civil rights violations.” Dkt. No. 47. 19 Dismissal was with leave to amend. Id. at 2. Barijaos filed a first amended complaint (FAC), Dkt. 20 No. 60, which was presented as a red-lined edit of the prior complaint. Petaluma and Sonoma ask 21 again to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. Nos. 64, 65. The parties’ 22 familiarity with the record is assumed, and the FAC is dismissed. 23 The reasons for dismissal are straightforward. To start, Counts One through Three of the 24 FAC allege violations of the First and Fourth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 25 Petaluma and Sonoma. To plausibly allege these claims, the FAC should have provided facts 26 showing that (1) Barijaos was deprived of a constitutional right, “(2) that the municipality had a 27 policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional right; 1 Dist. No. 40 Cty. of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and 2 citation omitted); see also Escobar-Lopez v. City of Daly City, 527 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1128 (N.D. 3 Cal. 2021) (and cases cited therein). There must be a “direct causal link between a municipal 4 policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival 5 Ass’n, 541 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 6 (1989)). 7 The FAC did not present any facts that might allow even an inference that these essential 8 elements of a Section 1983 claims were plausibly alleged. The FAC offers a few rather oblique 9 references to the conduct of unnamed police officers on the day of the incident, but a public entity 10 is liable only for its “own misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009); see also 11 Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011). A public entity may not be held vicariously liable 12 for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under the theory of respondeat superior. See Board 13 of Cty. Comm'rs. of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). The FAC did not plausibly 14 allege that the ostensible constitutional torts were the result of policies or practices sponsored by 15 Petaluma or Sonoma. 16 The fact that the FAC concerns only a single incident also undercuts the plausibility of the 17 Section 1983 claims. That is because “a policy or practice requires more than a few occurrences 18 of challenged conduct. A single or even a few isolated and sporadic incidents of unconstitutional 19 conduct are not enough to impose municipal liability under Section 1983.” Escobar-Lopez, 527 F. 20 Supp. 3d at 1128 (citing Gant v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir. 2014)); see also 21 Connick, 563 U.S. at 61 (practices must be “so persistent and widespread as to practically have the 22 force of law”); Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 6 F.4th 961, 974 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Generally, ‘a single 23 incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability under Monell.’”) (quoting 24 City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823-24 (1985)). The FAC focuses entirely on one 25 event in 2024 that is not linked in a non-conclusory way to similar incidents. 26 Overall, the Section 1983 claims in the FAC are “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 27 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” that “do not suffice” to plausibly 1 So too for the remaining claim. Count Four alleges claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1512, 18 2 USS.C. § 1519, and California Penal Code sections, but these are criminal statutes without a 3 || private night of action ina civil case. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) 4 || (criminal statutes “provide no basis for civil liability.”) (citations omitted); [. D. v. Abler, No. 25- 5 || CV-04431-JD, 2025 WL 2337085, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2025). It is dismissed. 6 The closing question is whether Barijaos should be permitted another opportunity to 7 || amend. The Court has afforded Barijaos the generous consideration given to pro se litigants. 8 || Even so, he “still must satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 and state facts sufficient to allege a 9 || plausible claim.” Nordin v. Scott, No. 3:21-CV-04717-JD, 2021 WL 4710697, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 10 || Oct. 8, 2021) (citation omitted), aff'd, No. 22-15816, 2023 WL 4418595 (9th Cir. July 10, 2023). 11 Barijaos has now filed multiple complaints. He was afforded leave to amend after entry of a 12 || dismissal order that identified the shortcomings in his complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 13 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court’s discretion in providing additional opportunities to amend 14 || is “particularly broad,” Chodos v. West Publishing Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002), and 3 || the record indicates that further amendment would not be productive. Consequently, dismissal is 16 without further leave to amend, and the case is closed. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: May 5, 2026 19 20 JAMES/PONATO 21 United Ptates District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11373727. Public record. Not legal advice.