Judge sustains some claims made by accused robber shot by California police officer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge on Tuesday permitted some claims to proceed against a California city and one of its officers after an armed robbery suspect shot by police sued.

Bryson Jones claimed he crashed his car while he was chased by Vallejo Police Officer Matthew Komoda on Nov. 20, 2023. Yelling “he has a gun,” Komoda shot at Jones twice as he ran away, striking him in the left arm. Authorities later charged Jones with armed robbery and other offenses.

Jones sued Vallejo and Komoda last year, saying he had severe injuries, pain and emotional distress.

Jones had seven causes of action against the defendants, including excessive force, unreasonable search and seizure, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Vallejo sought to dismiss three of those: claims of a due process violation, an unreasonable search and seizure claim, and a Bane Act claim, which protects people from interference of their rights through force.

On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim granted part of a motion to dismiss. She dismissed the due process claim and a portion of the second challenged claim. However, she upheld the Bane Act claim.

All of the unchallenged claims will also proceed.

Vallejo argued that Jones failed to state a claim in his accusations. Jones said excessive force was used against him and that he became a pretrial detainee when Komoda tried to detain him — a violation of his due process.

“… it is clear plaintiff is not a pretrial detainee,” Kim wrote, adding later: “On the contrary, plaintiff’s basis for his excessive force claim is related to an incident that occurred in the course of an arrest.”

As Jones wasn’t a pretrial detainee at the time, he has no claim, the judge ruled.

Turning to the unreasonable search and seizure claim, Kim offered Jones a mixed bag.

In that claim, Jones said Vallejo has a policy and practice of improperly training its officers. He pointed to a stipulated judgment between the city and state Department of Justice and Komoda’s “repeated acts of misconduct” to bolster his claim.

A seizure is when an officer restrains someone’s liberty, Kim wrote. Jones argued that Komoda used excessive force in three prior shootings, which showed the city allowed such officers to remain on patrol. After one of those shootings, which was fatal, Komoda received a promotion.

Kim ruled that Jones properly alleged a violation of his Fourth and 14th Amendment rights, denying that portion of the motion to dismiss.

However, Kim ruled that a due process claim under the Fifth and 14th Amendments failed because the Fifth Amendment due process clause applies only to the federal government. She dismissed that part of Jones’ claim.

Pivoting to the Bane Act violation, Kim ruled that claim would remain intact.

Jones accused authorities of violating his rights when they tried to stop and detain him, as it equated to threats, coercion and intimidation.

“Here, plaintiff’s allegations of excessive force are sufficient to satisfy the threats, intimidation, and coercion element,” the judge wrote. “The [complaint] alleges that Officer Komoda shot plaintiff when his back was turned and he was running away.

“In addition, specific intent is alleged because ‘a reckless disregard for a person’s constitutional rights is evidence of a specific intent to deprive that person of those rights,’” Kim added.

The judge also dismissed a punitive damage claim against the city, ruling that it’s not liable for such damages because it’s a municipality.

Attorneys for Jones replied to Courthouse News but provided no comment. An attorney for the defendants couldn’t be reached for comment.