SAN JOSE (LN) — U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen on Friday denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the core Section 1983 claims in Wiles Nagle IV v. City of San Jose, ruling that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that officers used excessive force and failed to intervene during a traffic stop. However, she dismissed the Bane Act claim against three named officers, finding the allegations did not meet the statute's specific intent requirement.
The case centers on a January 10, 2025, traffic stop that plaintiff John Wiles Nagle IV alleges escalated into a violent assault. Nagle, who was driving his son and other family members to get propane for a barbecue, claims officers exited their vehicle, drew weapons, and ordered him out of the car.
Nagle alleges that after he was pinned to the ground, Officer Jose Alvarez “sprinted towards Plaintiff and struck him with a blow from his knee, before repeatedly striking him with a closed fist no fewer than five times all over his body.”
The complaint further alleges that another officer delivered a knee strike to Nagle’s back and a closed-fist strike to his face, breaking his nose. Nagle claims officers subsequently pinned him with knees to his back and neck, injuring and choking him.
The motion to dismiss sought to throw out claims against three named officers—Peter Ryu, David Freudenstein, and Michael Jaycox—as well as 25 Doe defendants.
Van Keulen denied the motion to dismiss the Section 1983 claims against Ryu, Freudenstein, and Jaycox, rejecting the argument that Nagle failed to plead specific facts linking them to the assault. While the complaint did not explicitly name which of the three officers participated assault, Van Keulen found it plausible that the two unnamed officers described in the complaint were among the three named defendants.
More importantly, the judge ruled that Nagle sufficiently pleaded a failure-to-intervene theory. The complaint alleges the three officers were and “failed to stop the assault,” providing them with an opportunity to intercede.
“Accordingly, even if Named Officers Ryu, Freudenstein and Jaycox did not directly participate assault... Plaintiff’s claims are sufficiently pleaded under a failure to intervene theory,” Van Keulen wrote.
However, the judge dismissed the Bane Act claim (Count IV) against Ryu, Freudenstein, and Jaycox with leave to amend. The court noted that the Bane Act requires a showing of specific intent to violate an arrestee’s rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion. Van Keulen agreed with the defendants that Nagle’s allegations described conduct that was “conscience-shocking, reckless, deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s rights, negligent, and objectively unreasonable,” but fell short of proving the specific intent required for a Bane Act violation.
The court explicitly denied the motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim against Officer Alvarez, noting that Alvarez had already answered the first amended complaint and thus waived his Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to the allegations.
The judge also denied the motion to dismiss the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VI) against all named officers, finding Nagle’s allegations of reckless conduct plausible under California law.
The judge also denied the motion to dismiss the 25 Doe defendants, allowing Nagle to keep them in the case until he can identify them. However, Van Keulen ordered Nagle to amend the complaint to remove any remaining Doe defendants no later than 30 days prior to the close of fact discovery.
Nagle must file any amended complaint regarding the Bane Act claim by May 29, 2026. If he does not, the defendants must answer the second amended complaint by June 5, 2026.
The City of San Jose is also named as a defendant for negligent training and supervision.