Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bryan v. McPherson

February 6, 2008

CARL BRYAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRYAN MCPHERSON, PAUL CROOK, CORONADO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CORONADO, DOES 1-20, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT CROOK

On December 5, 2007, the Court issued an order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to certain claims, but ordering additional briefing and reserving judgment as to the issue of qualified immunity and Plaintiff's Monell claim, state tort claims, and claims under Cal. Civil Code § 52.1.

The parties have submitted additional briefing, and the Court is now prepared to rule on the remaining issues.

On January 18, 2008, the parties jointly moved to dismiss Defendant Crook.

I. Remaining Summary Judgment Issues

A. Qualified Immunity

Previously, the Court noted undisputed evidence that Plaintiff appeared volatile and his behavior erratic, and that he exited his car quickly even after being given repeated instructions to stay inside. It is beyond dispute that a reasonable officer under these circumstances would have been alert and cautious. Due to incomplete briefing, however, it was not sufficiently clear whether Defendants could meet their burden of proof on the issue of qualified immunity. See Moreno v. Baca, 431 F.3d 633, 638 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining burden of proof on issue of qualified immunity).

In his supplemental briefing, Plaintiff has provided evidence from which a reasonable jury could find Defendant McPherson was somewhere between 15 and 25 feet from Plaintiff at the time the incident took place. (P.'s Supplemental Reply at 2:18--23.) He has similarly presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer the relative positions of Plaintiff and MacPherson, and could conclude Plaintiff was not facing McPherson when Plaintiff was shot with the Taser. (Id. at 4:4--27.) Plaintiff earlier submitted a photograph showing a blood stain on the pavement which he argues suggests his position when he fell. (Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. E.) In his supplemental reply, he argues a jury could infer he fell forward, and could therefore find he was shot from behind. The photographic evidence does not reasonably show this, because if as Plaintiff argues he was shot from behind and fell forward, and if as Plaintiff states he did not move away from the car after getting out, he would have hit the car door and not the pavement. Nevertheless, the evidence could at least show Plaintiff was not facing Defendant McPherson directly when he was shot with the Taser. Taking all the evidence into account, a jury could reasonably find Plaintiff did not present an obvious immediate threat to Defendant McPherson.

Unlike certain other weapons, the effects of being shot by a Taser is not common knowledge; thus, in the absence of evidence, jurors would be left to speculate regarding how dangerous a Taser might be. The Court pointed out Plaintiff had failed to include evidence regarding how dangerous the Taser used in this incident could be expected to be, or what alternatives a reasonable officer would have been aware of when confronted with this situation. (Order of Dec. 5, 2007, at 13:14--18.) The only gesture towards briefing this is Plaintiff's argument that Plaintiff was standing on an asphalt pavement at the time he was shot with the Taser, so that when he fell, he might sustain serious injuries. (P.'s Supplemental Reply at 4:28--5:3.) Plaintiff had previously submitted testimonial evidence he suffered great pain when hit with the Taser and fell and broke several of his teeth on the pavement.

A reasonable jury might infer from this evidence that a reasonable officer would have known a Taser was painful and that the resulting fall might cause injury. In a different case, this might not be sufficient to withstand summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. However, in view of the evidence regarding the distance between Plaintiff and Defendant McPherson, and their relative positions, the Court concludes it is a question for the jury whether a reasonable officer would have known deploying the Taser under the circumstances was clearly unlawful. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (explaining that the qualified immunity inquiry focuses on whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.). If the jury believes Plaintiff's evidence, Plaintiff was standing far from Defendant McPherson and was not facing or advancing on McPherson when he was hit with the Taser. A jury could reasonably conclude under the circumstances McPherson was presented with, Plaintiff presented no immediate danger to him and no use of force was necessary.

B. Tort Claim, § 52.1 Claim

While the complaint brought claims under Cal. Civil Code § 52.1 against all Defendants, Defendants' motion for summary judgment addressed only the claim against Defendant McPherson. Defendants' motion argued, based on the text of this section, that it supported only claims based on attempts to interfere with the exercise of Constitutional rights. While the plain text of the statute supports such an interpretation, California case law suggests this section should be interpreted more broadly to encompass intentional violation of an individual's right to be free from police interference. See Gillan v. City of San Marino, 147 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1037 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 2007) (holding arrest without probable cause would support recovery under § 52.1). Although the language of the section refers to "persons," it appears municipal defendants may also be liable under this section. Id. at 1037, 1053--53 (affirming denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict on § 52.1 claim against city and municipal employees). See also Austin B. v. Escondido Union School Dist., 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 883 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. 2007) (discussing the meaning of § 52.1).

Because the state tort claim against Defendant McPherson and ยง 52.1 claims against all Defendants are derivative of the excessive force claim, summary judgment on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.