Court Dismisses San Francisco Firefighter’s Civil Rights Suit

A federal judge in the Northern District of California has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a former San Francisco firefighter who claims his injuries at a structure fire in 2009 was due to race discrimination and negligence. Michael Estrada filed suit pro se earlier this year alleging civil rights violations under 42 USC §1983, gross negligence, race discrimination.

Estrada was seeking $125 million in gold as damages. Here is our earlier coverage of the filing of the suit, including a copy of the complaint. He was injured May 21, 2009 “when approximately 800 pounds of burning building material collapsed on him during the ‘Revere Street Fire.’” Estrada claims he suffered a traumatic brain injury with permanent cognitive effects; amnesia; a cervical spine fracture; multiple orthopedic injuries; and psychological injuries rendering him physically and mentally unable to the bring the lawsuit sooner. He asked the court to toll the normal statute of limitations based upon his incapacity and delayed discovery of evidence.

Quoting from the decision:

• On May 21, 2009, Plaintiff responded to the “Revere Street Fire.”
• A Black Assistant Chief with SFFD, Audrey Lee, assumed command at the fire.
• A White Deputy Chief, Pat Gardner, then arrived and relieved Lee of command.
• Plaintiff alleges that Gardner relieved Lee of his duties due to racial animus rather than operational necessity.
• Plaintiff was ordered, presumably by Gardner, to maintain a dangerous position near to the building even though a collapse zone had not been established.
• The building then collapsed, causing Plaintiff serious physical injury.
• Plaintiff also suffers from severe post-traumatic stress disorder, opioid dependency from pain management, and loss of his career.
• Video of the collapse and Plaintiff’s injury is used by fire departments nationwide to train firefighters on proper safety protocols.

Estrada argued that his delay in filing suit was excused by years of medical incapacity—including 125 surgeries, addiction, and PTSD.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White dismissed the suit on multiple grounds, including statute of limitations, failure to state a claim, and submission of false legal citations. He held that Estrada failed to provide specific facts showing he was continuously incapacitated or that the City’s conduct prevented timely filing. The judge emphasized that equitable tolling is an “extraordinary remedy” that requires detailed, good faith allegations, which were lacking in Estrada’s pleadings.

The Court also identified other serious flaws in the complaint:

• Estrada cited fictitious legal decisions and fabricated quotes from legitimate cases. The Court warned that such misrepresentations may warrant sanctions, including dismissal with prejudice.
• He failed to establish municipal liability under Monell standards, which require allegations of a formal policy or custom, or action by a final policymaker.
• His negligence claim may be barred by the exclusive remedy doctrine of California workers’ compensation law.
• He did not show compliance with administrative prerequisites for his discrimination claims under California or federal law.

Despite the flaws, the dismissal was without prejudice. The Court granted Estrada 21 days to file an amended complaint but cautioned that any amendment must address both the untimeliness of the claims, deficiencies in the original filing, and the need to cite actual case law.

Here is a copy of the decision.