Lawrence v. City of S.F.

258 F.Supp.3d 977

Emil LAWRENCE, Plaintiff,

v.CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00820-MEJ.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Signed June 15, 2017

Frederick Sexton Fields, Howard Alan Slavitt, David Bruce Anderson, Mark Luhe Hejinian, Sean P. J. Coyle, Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass, LLP, Martin Daniel White, Uber Technologies, Inc., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

Newton Oldfather, Brian Paul Ceballo, San Francisco City Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 99

MARIA–ELENA JAMES, United States Magistrate Judge

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants the City and County of San Francisco (the "City"), San Francisco Police Department ("SFPD") Officer Christa Peters, and SFPD Officer Daniel Bonnel (collectively, "Defendants"). Dkt. No. 99. Plaintiff Emil Lawrence ("Plaintiff") filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 110) and Defendants filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 117). Having considered the parties' positions, the relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion for the following reasons.

MATERIAL FACTS

A. Plaintiff's Detention

Karen Waksman filed an Incident Report with the SFPD alleging that her iPad had been stolen from a restaurant located at 1480 Fillmore Street, San Francisco, California on December 21, 2011.¹ Ceballo Decl., Ex. B ("Incident Report"), Dkt. No. 101. The Incident Report identifies Plaintiff as the person suspected of taking her iPad. Id.

On January 2, 2012, Waksman called 911 to report that the person who stole her iPad had returned to the restaurant. Ceballo Decl., Ex. C ("Dispatch Report"). Peters and nonparty SFPD Officer Joshua Enea responded to the call. Id. at 1; Ceballo Decl., Ex. D ("Defs.' Peters Dep.") at 18:5–19; Anderson Decl., Ex. 9 ("Pl.'s Peters Dep.") at 18:5–19, Dkt. No. 111; Ceballo Decl., Ex. E ("Defs.' Enea Dep.") at 25:2–7. When Peters and Enea arrived at the restaurant, an employee identified Plaintiff as the person who had stolen Waksman's iPad. Defs.' Peters Dep. at 18:20–19:5; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 18:20–19:5; Defs.' Enea Dep. at 25:25–26:10, 37:3–6. Peters and Enea approached Plaintiff to speak with him. Defs.' Enea Dep. at 29:5–20. They explained to Plaintiff that someone had accused him of taking an iPad. Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 24:6–15. The officers informed Plaintiff that he was not under arrest, but that the officers were detaining him pending an investigation. Defs.' Enea Dep. at 29:17–20, 37:13–21; Defs.' Peters Dep. at 25:8–9, 18–20; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 25:8–9, 18–20.

Plaintiff loudly voiced his disagreement about the detention. Defs.' Peters Dep. at 26:3–11, 26:24–27:10; 28:16–25; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 26:3–11, 26:24–27:10; Defs.' Enea Dep. at 58:6–8, 23–25Pl.'s Enea Dep. at 37:25–38:3, 41:9–12. Peters and Enea testified that Plaintiff was pacing or trying to walk away. Defs.' Peters Dep. at 27:15–16, 29:2; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 27:15–16, 29:2; Defs.' Enea Dep. at 57:25–58:1, 77:9–10; but see Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 39:20–25 (when asked whether Plaintiff tried to evade arrest, Peters responded Plaintiff "[j]ust verbally resist[ed]. He didn't try to run away or anything at that point."). The responding officers placed Plaintiff in handcuffs. Defs.' Peters Dep. at 25:20–24; 33:25–34:2; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 25:20–24; Defs.' Enea Dep. at 57:21–58:11. Plaintiff informed Peters and Enea that he had a pin or a plate in his wrist. Defs.' Peters Dep. at 34:3–5 (Plaintiff mentioned he had a "pin ... or something" in his wrist), 15–16 (remembering Plaintiff "yelling something about a pin or prior surgery"); Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 34:3–5, 15–16; Pl.'s Lawrence Dep. at 100:23–24 (testifying he has a plate in his wrist). For that reason, the officers used two sets of handcuffs to restrain Plaintiff. Defs.' Peters Dep. at 2–3; Ceballo Decl., Ex. F ("Defs.' Aug. 19 Lawrence Dep.") at 102:4–8, 109:1–2; Anderson Decl., Ex. 7 ("Pl.'s Lawrence Dep.") at 100:25–101:2. Plaintiff described the handcuffs as being "bone tight." Pl.'s Lawrence Dep. at 100:25–101:1. He "felt nonstop pain" due to "the fact that [his] hands were twisted and ... [he] could no longer move them one way or another." Id. at 115:10–13. He further testified that he suffered "numbness in [his] thumbs and forefingers for up to six weeks." Id. at 115:17–19.

B. Plaintiff's Placement into the Patrol Car

When Peters directed Plaintiff into the back of the patrol car, Plaintiff objected: "Listen, you don't expect me to sit in a backseat that looks like it's fit for a midget, do you?". Defs.' Aug. 19 Lawrence Dep. at 108:10–14; Defs.' Enea Dep. at 77:5–7; see also Dispatch Report ("GUY IN CAR IS KINDA BIG" (capitalization in original)). Peters insisted Plaintiff get into the patrol car. Defs.' Aug. 19 Lawrence Dep. at 108:15. The parties agree Plaintiff had difficulty doing so, and had to be physically assisted by Peters. See id. at 110:23–111:25; Pl.'s Lawrence Dep. at 111:1–112:25. Plaintiff testified that while trying to get him into the car, Peters pushed him with her hands and "her leg, either her knee or her foot or combination thereof." Pl.'s Lawrence Dep. at 112:15–16.

Once Plaintiff was in the patrol car, Enea went into the restaurant to review video footage of the alleged theft. Defs.' Enea Dep. 95:11–14. This took somewhere between ten to forty-five minutes. Compare Defs.' Enea Dep. 96:19–97:1 (Plaintiff sat in the back of the police car for ten to fifteen minutes before Peters transported him to Northern Station) with Pl.'s Lawrence Dep. at 116:18–20 ("[W]e sat in the car for 40 minutes—30 to 40 minutes. I think it was probably up to 45 minutes, but it could be 30 to 45 minutes."). Having reviewed the video, Enea returned outside to Peters, informed her that Plaintiff "is the individual that's on the video footage", and told her to take Plaintiff to Northern Station. Defs.' Enea Dep. at 97:15–24; Pl.'s Enea Dep. at 97:15–24. At this point, Plaintiff was under arrest. Defs.' Enea Dep. at 97:4–6, 98:14–15 ("At the time [Plaintiff] was being transported that was the arrest."); Pl.'s Defs.' Enea Dep. at 97:4–6; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 42:20–25 ("Q. At what point did [Plaintiff's] detainment turn into an arrest? A. When Officer Enea got back and let us know the details, we filled out a citation.").

C. Plaintiff's Removal from the Patrol Car

Peters, on her own, transported Plaintiff a few blocks away to Northern Station. Dispatch Report at 1; Defs.' Peters Dep. at 113:3–6; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 44:14–15; Defs.' Enea Dep. at 24:17–20. During the drive, Plaintiff continued "yelling about his disagreement with the arrest." Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 44:21–24.

At Northern Station, Peters opened the door to let Plaintiff out, but Plaintiff refused to and/or could not exit the patrol car. Defs.' Peters Dep. at 45:11–14; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 45:11–14. Peters testified that Plaintiff "was very upset" and "it looked like he kind of got in a way where he couldn't get out by himself, kind of wedged a little bit." Defs.' Peters Dep. at 45:15–18; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 45:15–18; see id. at 46:11–16 (both) (explaining that "if you don't sit right, you can get kind of stuck. [ ] It's just real tight back there. So if you're going to move around and get upset, no matter what size you are, you're going to get kind of contorted, and it's hard to move and get out on your own."). Peters "knew at this point [Plaintiff] couldn't" exit the vehicle and knew "she needed help getting him out." Defs.' Peters Dep. at 47:2–3; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 47:2–3. During this time, Plaintiff was "screaming ‘you can't make me get out of the car. I didn't do anything,’ stuff to that effect." Defs.' Peters Dep. at 46:20–22; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 46:20–22.

Peters "didn't believe [she] was strong enough to lift [Plaintiff]," so she radioed for another officer to help her remove Plaintiff from the vehicle.² Defs.' Peters Dep. at 45:19–25; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 45:19–25. Peters then flagged down Bonnel, who had just driven past her in the parking lot. Defs.' Peters Dep. at 47:4–16; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 47:4–16. Peters explained to Bonnel that Plaintiff was "stuck" and "refusing to get out of the car." Defs.' Peters Dep. at 48:13–15; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 48:13–15. Bonnel observed Plaintiff acting "[v]ery belligerent" and screaming " ‘You can't make me get out of his car.’ " Ceballo Decl., Ex. I ("Defs.' Bonnel Dep.") at 32:14–21; Anderson Decl., Ex. 10 ("Pl.'s Bonnel Dep.") at 32:14–21. Bonnel believed Plaintiff did not need help, but rather simply refused to get out of the car. Defs.' Bonnel Dep. at 25:11–19; Pl.'s Bonnel Dep. at 25:11–19.

Bonnel "spoke to [Plaintiff] for a few minutes and tried to convey the fact that he needed to get out of the back of the car[.]" Defs.' Bonnel Dep. at 33:9–11; Pl.'s Bonnel Dep. at 33:9–11. Plaintiff continued to scream that Bonnel could not make him get out. Id. at 33:11–13 (both). Bonnel asked Plaintiff to get out of the car at least ten times. Id. at 37:18–22 (both). Specifically, Bonnel "explained to [Plaintiff] that no matter what the circumstances are he's going to have to get out of the car, so make it easy on yourself and make an effort to get out." Id. at 38:1–4 (both).

Bonnel proceeded to remove Plaintiff from the vehicle. Bonnel describes Plaintiff's removal as follows: he "placed [his] right arm under [Plaintiff's] right arm in the armpit area, and then put [his] left arm under [Plaintiff's] left armpit area, lifted [Plaintiff] up and out of the car, and set him down butt first on the sidewalk next to the open door area of the vehicle."

Defs.' Bonnel Dep. at 42:15–19; Pl.'s Bonnel Dep. at 38:15–19; see id. at 43:3–18 (both); Defs.' Peters Dep. at 58:4–12; Pl.'s Peters Dep. at 58:4–12. Plaintiff testified Bonnel "grabbed [him] by the coat ... and pulled [him] right out forcefully." Pl.'s Lawrence Dep. at 135:5–6; see id. at 143:5–10 (...