Daniel v. Richards

GEORGE DANIEL, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH RICHARDS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02426-VC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

April 3, 2015

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS; DENYING MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 124, 126, 134

I. INTRODUCTION

This case stems from the arrest and subsequent detention of Plaintiff George Daniel. On the night of May 16, 2012, Daniel was arrested by Santa Rosa Junior College District police officers Joseph Richards and Brittany Hawks ("the SRJC defendants"). He was then booked and spent the two and a half days in jail at the Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility, which is operated by Sonoma County, Sheriff Steve Freitas, and Assistant Sheriff Randall Walker ("the County defendants").

Daniel has sued the SRJC defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they detained and arrested him. The SRJC defendants have moved for summary judgment, which is granted. Daniel has also moved to amend his complaint to add two new SRJC officers, Officers Willat and Brownlee, who are the supervising officers of Richards and Hawks. The motion to amend to add these two defendants is denied.

Daniel has also brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Sonoma County, Sheriff Steve Freitas, and Assistant Sheriff Randall Walker for alleged violations of Daniel's Fourth Amendment rights that occurred while Daniel was detained at the Main Adult Detention Facility ("MADF"). The Sonoma County defendants have moved for summary judgment, which is granted. Daniel has moved to amend his complaint to add several officers with whom Daniel interacted during histime at MADF. This motion is denied.

II. SRJC DEFENDANTS

A. Motion for Summary Judgment

Daniel has alleged that Officers Richards and Hawks violated his Fourth Amendment rights by detaining him without reasonable suspicion, arresting him without probable cause, and using excessive force during their arrest. And Daniel argues - in both his opposition brief and in an affidavit attached to his brief - that genuine fact disputes make this case unsuitable for summary judgment. But none of the disputes is material to whether Richards and Hawks violated Daniel's Fourth Amendment rights.¹ To the contrary, the undisputed evidence shows that Richards and Hawks had reasonable suspicion to detain Daniel, had probable cause to arrest him, and used reasonable (and minimal) force in their interactions with him.

The undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to Daniel, are as follows. Richards and Hawks were on routine patrol on the night of May 26, 2012 when a police dispatch indicated that a burglar alarm was going off at the Ridgway Swim Center in Santa Rosa, California. Richards and Hawks responded to the dispatch because they were already in the area. They conducted a perimeter search of the Swim Center and noticed that a door was open. As they repositioned to get a view inside the Swim Center, they saw a man, who would later be identified as Daniel, riding a bicycle at what the officers described as a "faster than medium" pace through the parking lot of the Swim Center.

The officers suspected that Daniel may have been involved in the burglary and that he was attempting to get away. They shined a flashlight at Daniel, identified themselves as police officers, and ordered him to stop. Daniel turned and glanced at the police officers, but did not know whatthe officers said and did not realize they were police asking him to stop. Because he believed it might have been someone trying to mug him, he rode away on his bike. The officers followed Daniel, initially with Hawks chasing after Daniel on foot and Richards in the police car, but after a short distance Richards picked Hawks up and they both followed Daniel in the police car. They turned on their emergency lights and, at times, their siren, but Daniel continued to ride his bicycle away from them, running through at least three stop signs and leading the officers to believe that Daniel was attempting to evade them. Daniel claims he did not realize the officers were trying to get him to stop, but his deposition testimony shows that he continued to ride several blocks without stopping even after he noticed the flashing red lights and the siren. Finally, roughly a half mile from the Swim Center, after Daniel slowed down, Richards pulled the car around Daniel and parked diagonally in front of him, which led Daniel to stop.

Richards and Hawks, both in full police uniform, got out of the police car and ordered Daniel to stop. They approached him on his bicycle, and Hawks grabbed Daniel's left arm while Richards grabbed his right arm. Daniel alleges they grabbed him violently. Once Daniel was off the bicycle, Richards placed him in handcuffs. Although Daniel later claimed that the handcuffs were too tight and were painful, he has no recollection of complaining to the officers at that time.

Richards and Daniel then had a back-and-forth, with Richards repeatedly asking Daniel for identifying information and Daniel refusing to provide it and asking Richards what authority he had to request that information. Daniel also repeatedly asked Richards what authority Richards had to stop him. At one point during the stop, Daniel walked to the front of the police car where Hawks was standing and asked Hawks her name; Hawks did not answer and did not engage with Daniel.

Also during the stop, Richards searched Daniel's person and a small canvas bag that was attached to Daniel's bike. Richards did not find any weapons or any dangerous objects, but he did find two bank cards which included Daniel's name, and then asked Daniel if his name was George Daniel. Daniel again refused to answer the question, as well as several subsequent questions, including whether Daniel had been inside the Swim Center. Daniel informed Richards that he would not answer any questions without speaking with counsel.

Near the end of the stop, Richards told Daniel that Daniel could provide identifying information and be released with a citation, or he would be taken to jail. Daniel again refused to provide identifying information, and Richards told Daniel that he was under arrest for willfully delaying and resisting the orders of a police officer, and for evading and failure to comply with lawful orders. At this point, Daniel said, "I demand that you immediately take me before a magistrate."

The officers took Daniel to the SRJC District Police Station. There, Daniel complained about the handcuffs being too tight, so Richards loosened them, and once Daniel complained a second time, Richards said he could not loosen them further, but he instead attached a second set of handcuffs so that Daniel could keep his arms farther apart. Daniel was booked into Sonoma County jail, after which neither Richards nor Hawks had any further contact with him.

These undisputed facts show that Richards and Hawks did not violate Daniel's Fourth Amendment rights. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Richards and Hawks clearly had reasonable suspicion for stopping Daniel, as they had "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing." U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). They saw Daniel riding his bicycle away from the scene of a suspected burglary. When they ordered him to stop, Daniel ignored them and rode away, continuing for several blocks even after the officers activated their emergency lights and siren. From their perspective, it was reasonable to believe that Daniel was attempting to evade them. And by the time they stopped him, not only did the officers have reasonable suspicion that Daniel may have been involved in a burglary; they had reasonable suspicion that he was willfully fleeing officers and that he had violated various traffic laws.

The same is true with respect to their probable cause for arresting him. At the time that Richards placed Daniel under arrest, "the facts and circumstances within [Richards'] knowledge and of which [Richards] had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the suspect had violated a criminal law." Grant v. City of Long Beach, 315 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Daniel's refusal to dispel the officers' suspicion that he'd attempted to break in to the Swim Center contributed to this.And regardless of whether Richards had probable cause to arrest Daniel for attempted burglary, Richards certainly had probable cause to arrest Daniel for willfully resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer in the discharge of his duties (Penal Code § 148(a)(1)); for failure to move to side of the road and yield to an emergency vehicle (Vehicle Code § 21806(a)(1)); and for running through stop signs on his bicycle (Vehicle Code § § 21200(a) and 22450(a), which requires bicyclists to obey all Vehicle Code provisions that apply to motorists). Daniel's own perception of whether he was being pursued by the officers is immaterial.

Further, the evidence shows that neither Richards nor Hawks used excessive force in detaining or arresting Daniel, as "the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). Hawks and Richards grabbed Daniel's arms to prevent him from fleeing, but there is no indication that this was excessive or caused Daniel any harm. Richards placed Daniel in handcuffs to detain him once Daniel was off his bicycle, and kept him in handcuffs until Daniel was booked in the Sonoma County jail, but the undisputed facts show that, rather than using excessive force in placing the handcuffs on Daniel, Richards actually took action to alleviate Daniel's discomfort each time that Daniel complained the handcuffs were too tight.²

Because the undisputed evidence shows that neither Richards...