Dawson v. Cnty. of Stanislaus

1

AMANDA DAWSON, GARRETT WOODRAL, DUSTIN WOODRAL, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, NATHAN CRAIN, Defendants.

No. 1:20-CV-372-BAM

United States District Court, E.D. California

February 15, 2023

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC NOS. 31, 32)

BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiffs Amanda Dawson, Garrett Woodral, and Dustin Woodral (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this civil action alleging a violation of their civil rights in connection with an allegedly unlawful attack by a Stanislaus County police dog on Donnie Woodral (“Mr Woodral”) during a traffic stop. The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication have been fully briefed and are now pending before the Court.^[1] (Docs. 31-32, 36, 38, 40-41.)

Having considered the record, the parties' briefs and arguments and the relevant law, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary adjudication in its entirety, and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs initiated this action on March 11, 2020. (Doc. 1.) According to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, Mr. Woodral was driving when Stanislaus County deputies pulled him over. (Doc. 18 ¶ 1.) In fear of prior encounters with abusive deputies, Mr. Woodral ran into a field. Id. Deputies released a police dog to follow Mr. Woodral, who was unarmed. Id. The dog attacked Mr. Woodral and continued to attack him even after deputies had arrived. Id. Deputies permitted the dog to continue to bite Mr. Woodral until the dog bit off Mr. Woodral's thumb. Id. Despite this injury, deputies refused to summon emergency medical attention. (Doc. 18 ¶ 2.) After waiting a significant amount of time, Mr. Woodral was seen by doctors, who attempted to reattach his thumb. Id. Mr. Woodral's thumb, although reattached, can no longer be moved, bent or otherwise controlled. Id. Furthermore, the police dog bit Mr. Woodral's stomach causing significant damages and scarring. Id.

Plaintiffs allege the following claims: (1) violations of the Fourth Amendment for Excessive Force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Nathan Crain; (2) municipal and supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant County of Stanislaus (“Monell liability” or “Monell claim”); (3) state civil rights violations under California Civil Code § 52.1, the Bane Act, against Defendants Nathan Crain and County of Stanislaus; (4) battery against Defendants Nathan Crain and County of Stanislaus, in violation of California Penal Code § 242; and (5) negligence against Defendants Nathan Crain and County of Stanislaus. (Doc. 18.)

Plaintiffs now move for partial summary adjudication against Defendants as to the liability portion of their excessive force, negligence, and Monell claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Doc. 32.) Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Plaintiffs are not entitled to summary adjudication as reasonable force was used. (Doc. 36.) Plaintiffs replied. (Doc. 40.) Defendants concurrently move for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and Defendants replied. (Docs. 38, 41.)

On September 27, 2022, initial Plaintiff Donnie Woodral's children Amanda Dawson, Garrett Woodral, and Dustin Woodral were substituted for Donnie Woodral in this action as plaintiffs following Donnie Woodral's death. (Doc. 51.) On January 6, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal as to Plaintiffs' negligence claim against Defendants Crain and Stanislaus County. (Doc. 62.)

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE

Based upon the parties' Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Donnie Woodral was on supervised custodial release from state prison under Post Release Community Supervision and wore a GPS tracked ankle monitor on February 2, 2019. (Doc. 31-3, Joint Statement of Joint Undisputed Facts (“UF”) ¶ 1.) Mr. Woodral was also out on bail for a 10851 CVC investigation involving a big rig and prior gas theft cases, and was a suspect in an investigation of a stolen fuel trailer conducted by Stanislaus County Sheriff;s Deputy. (UF ¶ 2.)

On the afternoon of February 2, 2019, Mr. Woodral was in possession of a stolen white Chevy Silverado truck and stolen 2018 Thunder Creek Fuel Trailer. (UF ¶¶ 3-4.) Mr. Woodral attempted to evade arrest by driving the stolen truck and trailer, in which he was accompanied by Dennis Herd, onto a dirt road in an orchard. (UF ¶¶ 6-7.) The parties' versions of the remaining events diverge.

A. Plaintiffs' Version of Events^[2]

Mr. Woodral drove down a dirt road on top of an irrigation canal while being pursued by deputies. (Doc. 32-8, Plaintiffs' Statement of Separate Undisputed Facts, (“PSSUF”) ¶ 4.) At that time, Defendant Crain had not received any information that anyone inside the truck was armed. (PSSUF ¶ 3.) A helicopter operated by the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department joined the pursuit, spotting Mr. Woodral as he drove on the dirt road. (PSSUF ¶ 5.) Mr. Woodral continued to attempt to evade arrest, driving the stolen truck and trailer on the dirt road in an orchard. (PSSUF ¶ 6.) Mr. Woodral eventually pulled the truck to the side of the road and began fleeing on foot through a nearby orchard. (PSSUF ¶ 6.) Defendant Crain drove down a dirt road that cut through the orchard, roughly paralleling Mr. Woodral as he ran. (PSSUF ¶ 7.) Soon after, Defendant Crain spotted Mr. Woodral standing behind a tree. (PSSUF ¶ 8.)

As Mr. Woodral began running again, Defendant Crain got out of his vehicle and released his dog. (PSSUF ¶ 9.) Within five seconds of being released, the police dog made contact with Mr. Woodral. (PSSUF ¶ 10.) The dog bit Mr. Woodral's stomach, latching on as it took him to the ground. (PSSUF ¶ 11.) Mr. Woodral was unable to move because the dog was biting him while he laid on the ground on his back. (PSSUF ¶ 12.) The dog bit Mr. Woodral's right hand and arm for approximately 14 seconds before Defendant Crain reached Mr. Woodral and the dog. (PSSUF ¶ 13.) As he approached, Defendant Crain commanded Mr. Woodral to get on his stomach. (PSSUF ¶ 14; UF ¶ 12.) Mr. Woodral complied, rolling over to his stomach as the dog continued biting his arm. (PSSUF ¶ 15.) Mr. Woodral begged Defendant Crain to get the dog off of him and told Defendant Crain that he was not trying to run anymore. (PSSUF ¶ 16.) At that time, Mr. Woodral was not resisting arrest. (PSSUF ¶ 17.) Defendant Crain straddled the dog and picked it up by its vest while it continued biting Mr. Woodral's arm. (PSSUF ¶ 18.)

Defendant Crain held the dog like this for approximately 18 seconds before the dog released its bite. (Id.) In total, the dog bit and held Mr. Woodral for approximately 30-32 seconds. (PSSUF ¶ 19; UF ¶ 11.) Though Mr. Woodral was compliant, Defendant Crain did not order the dog to release its bite because he was waiting for a fellow nearby deputy to come handcuff Mr. Woodral. (PSSUF ¶ 25, UF ¶ 14.)

Defendant Crain did not recall having to order the dog to release its bite of Mr. Woodral more than once and testified that he could not recall a single previous instance where this dog had failed to comply with the first order to release its bite. (PSSUF ¶¶ 20-21; UF ¶ 13.) Defendant Crain further testified that it ordinarily takes the dog “a couple of seconds” to release its bite. (PSSUF ¶ 22; Doc. 32-1, Ex. 1, Deposition of Nathan Crain at 77-78.) Defendant Crain testified that he has been trained that he is not permitted to continue using force against a person who is compliant, and he would not continue striking a suspect on the ground with a baton once the suspect became compliant. (PSSUF ¶ 23.) Defendant Crain also testified that he may not have ordered the dog to release its bite of Mr. Woodral even after Mr. Woodral was compliant because Mr. Woodral was not yet in handcuffs. (PSSUF ¶ 24.) Defendant Crain testified that allowing the dog to stay on its bite even after Mr. Woodral complied and Defendant Crain waited for another deputy conformed with Defendant Stanislaus County's policy and training. (PSSUF ¶ 26.) Defendant Stanislaus County trained Defendant Crain that determining when the duration of a police dog bite becomes excessive is analyzed under the same framework as other uses of force. (PSSUF ¶ 27.)

As a result of the dog mauling, Mr. Woodral sustained injuries. (UF ¶ 10.) Principally, Mr. Woodral suffered a severe injury to his dominant right hand. (PSSUF ¶ 28.) Mr. Woodral's thumb was left with ligaments hanging out of it after the dog attack. (PSSUF ¶ 29.) Mr. Woodral was treated by paramedics at the scene of the incident and then transported to Doctor's Medical Center in Modesto by ambulance. (UF ¶ 16.) Mr. Woodral was admitted to the hospital, and on February 3, 2019, Dr. Frazier performed surgery on Mr. Woodral's right thumb and ring finger. (UF ¶ 17.)

These injuries caused long-term effects to Mr. Woodral's hand and fingers. After treatment, Mr. Woodral no longer had feeling in his thumb, and he could not bend it. (PSSUF ¶ 29.) Mr. Woodral could not make a fist with his right hand and could not pick up more than four pounds with it. (PSSUF ¶ 30.) Mr. Woodral also struggled to write his own name with his injured hand. (PSSUF ¶ 31.)

B. Defendants' Version of Events^[3]

Defendant Crain followed Mr. Woodral's truck, turning off Albers Road and onto a dirt road on a canal bank, next to an orchard. (Doc. 31-2, Defendants' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“DSSUF”) ¶ 13.) While Defendant Crain was following, the truck attempted to pull off the canal road and immediately became stuck in the mud. (DSSUF ¶ 15.) Defendant Crain observed a male in a dark shirt, later identified as Mr. Woodral, jump out of the driver's side and...