Muhammad v. Garrett

66 F.Supp.3d 1287

Kareem MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff

v.Chad GARRETT, et al., Defendant.

Case No. 1:12–cv–01199–JLT.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Signed Dec. 10, 2014.

Filed Dec. 11, 2014.

Kareem Muhammad, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.

Heather Sharon Cohen, Michael G. Marderosian, Marderosian, Cercone & Cohen, Fresno, CA, Virginia Anne Gennaro, Bakersfield City Attorney's Office, Bakersfield, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, United States Magistrate Judge.

In this action, Plaintiff claims he suffered excessive force during an arrest. In the current motion, Defendants argue they are entitled to a grant of summary judgment because Plaintiff's entire complaint is barred. (Doc. 95) The evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff has suffered convictions of crimes that, if he was successful in the current action, would be undermined. Because he is not permitted to pursue this action without first demonstrating the criminal convictions have been set aside through direct attack, Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the motion is GRANTED.

I. Factual Background

On February 26, 2012, Kareem Muhammad suffered a broken arm during a scuffle with police officers. As a result of the incident, he was charged with being under the influence of a controlled substance in violation of California's Health & Safety section 11550(A), resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer in the performance of his duties in violation of Penal Code section 148(A) and assault on a peace officer in violation of Penal Code section 241(c). (Doc. 95–3 at 2 (Fact 1); Doc. 95–3 at 6; (Fact 7)).

During his criminal trial, Kareem Muhammad testified. (Doc. 95–3 at 5–6) (Fact 6¹ ) He told the jury he was confronted by people at a motel room he was renting. Id. Because he felt threatened by the people, he left the room. Id. Sometime later, he went to the hospital because he thought someone had tampered with his drink. Id. Nevertheless, he left the hospital in search of a taxi near an AM/PM convenience store. Id. As he walked near the store, he heard a shout and tripped on a curb. Id. As he lay on the concrete, a police officer approached and told him to continue to lie on the ground. Id. As he did so, the officer walked up and struck him on the arm and broke his bone. Id. Then officers dragged him toward the ambulance and scraped his chin. Id. Plaintiff denied ever having used methamphetamine or cocaine. Id.

The officers involved in the incident testified as well. Officer Garrett testified that he saw Plaintiff leaving the service station and that he appeared unsteady, was “high-stepping,” and appeared to be hallucinating. (Doc. 95–3 at 2 (Fact 2)) Officer Garrett observed that Plaintiff's muscles were rigid. Id.

Garrett testified that he approached Plaintiff and asked him to sit down but Plaintiff ignored him and continued walking. (Doc. 95–3 at 2 (Fact 2)) Garrett followed behind and ordered Plaintiff to sit down several times and, ultimately, Plaintiff sat. Id. During this time, Plaintiff appeared “fidgety” and was unable to sit still. Id. Garrett determined that Plaintiff was under the influence of drugs and decided to arrest him and attempted to place him in handcuffs. Id. When Garrett reached for Plaintiff's hands, Plaintiff tried to stand. Id. Garrett tried to prevent Plaintiff from standing by ordering him to remain seated, by grabbing his wrist and by pushing down on his shoulder. Id. Nevertheless, Plaintiff stood up, broke free and began running.Id. Garrett ran after Plaintiff and yelled orders for him to stop. Id.

Given Garrett's call for assistance, Officers Messick and Gavin arrived. (Doc. 95–3 at 3–5 (Facts 2–4)) Messick testified that he and Gavin arrived at the scene together. (Doc. 95–3 at 3–4 (Fact 3)) Messick saw Plaintiff running directly at him and Gavin. Id. Messick testified that Gavin got out of the patrol car and ordered Plaintiff to stop but he did not. Id. Messick gave chase and also ordered Plaintiff to stop but he did not. Id. Eventually, Messick reached Plaintiff and grabbed at his shoulders to try to stop him. Id. In response, Plaintiff turned toward him and swung a fist at Messick's face. Id. Messick dodged the blow and shoved Plaintiff. Id. This allowed Messick to get on Plaintiff's back and use his body weight to force Plaintiff to the ground. Id. Despite this, Plaintiff pushed up—in a push-up position—with Messick on his back in an attempt to throw Messick off. Id.

By this time, Gavin reached Messick and he too placed his body weight onto Plaintiff's back. (Doc. 95–3 at 3–4 (Fact 3)) Garrett then reached the group and used his body weight to try to stop Plaintiff from kicking. Id. Nevertheless, despite all three officers on Plaintiff's back, he continued to flail and was able to push up and off the ground. Id. (Doc. 95–3 at 5 (Fact 4)) Gavin punched Plaintiff in the rib cage in an effort to try to obtain control over Plaintiff's arm. Id. Given the continued level of resistance, Messick struck Plaintiff twice on the arm with his baton. (Doc. 95–3 at 3–4 (Fact 3)) Despite this, Plaintiff continued struggling and during which the officers heard a snapping sound which, it appears, was the sound of Plaintiff's arm bone breaking. (Doc. 95–3 at 3–5 (Facts 2–4)) Still, Plaintiff continued to use the arm in an attempt to break free. Id. Eventually, the officers were able to place Plaintiff in handcuffs. Id.

At the trial, a criminologist testified that Plaintiff's blood, taken at the time of the incident and which was tested at the lab, was positive for methamphetamine at one of the highest levels he had seen. (Doc. 95–3 at 5 (Fact 5)).

As to the Penal Code 148(A) charge, the court instructed the jury,

The defendant is charged in count 2 with resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer in the performance or attempted performance of his duties in violation of Penal Code section 148(A).

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime the People must prove that number one, Christopher Messick, Chad Garret, and Keegan Gavin were peace officers lawfully performing or attempting to perform their duties as a peace officer.

Number two, the defendant willfully resisted, obstructed, or delayed Christopher Messick, Chad Garrett, and/or Keegan Gavin or in the performance or attempted performance of those duties.

And number three, when the defendant acted, he knew or reasonably should have known that Christopher Messick, Chad Garrett, and Keegan Gavin were peace officers performing or attempting to perform their duties.

Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on purpose. It is not required that he or she intend to break the law, hurt someone else or gain an advantage. A person who is employed as a police officer by the Bakersfield Police Department is a peace officer.

The People allege that the defendant resisted, obstructed, or delayed Christopher Messick, Chad Garrett or Keegan Gavin by doing the following:

Failing to follow the instructions of the officers;

Running away from the officers;

Physically struggling when the officers attempted to handcuff the defendant; and

Attempting to run after being unhandcuffed.

You may not find the defendant guilty unless you all agree that the People have proved that the defendant committed at least one of the alleged acts of resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer who was lawfully performing his duties and you all agree on which act he committed.

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Christopher Messick, Chad Garrett, and Keegan Gavin were lawfully performing their duties as peace officers. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of Penal Code sections 148(A)(1) and 241(c).

A peace officer is not lawfully performing his duties if he is unlawfully arresting or detaining someone or using unreasonable or excessive force in his duties. A peace officer may legally detain someone if the person consents to the detention or if specific facts known or apparent to the officer lead him to suspect that the person to be detained has been, is, or is about to be involved in activity relating to crime and a reasonable officer who knew the same facts would have the same suspicion. Any other detention is unlawful.

In deciding whether the detention was lawful, consider evidence of the officer's training and experience and all the circumstances known by the officer when he or she detained the person. A peace officer may legally arrest someone if he has probable cause unlawful.

Probable cause exists when the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest would persuade someone of reasonable caution that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. In deciding whether the arrest was lawful, consider evidence of the officers' training and experience and all the circumstances known by the officer when he arrested the person. In order for an officer lawfully to arrest someone without a warrant for a misdemeanor or infraction, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested committed a misdemeanor or infraction in the officer's presence.

Penal Code section 148(A)(1) is a misdemeanor.

Special rules control the use of force. A peace officer may use reasonable force to arrest or detain someone to prevent escape, to overcome resistance or in self-defense. If a peace officer uses unreasonable or excessive force while arresting or attempting to arrest or detaining or attempting to detain a person, that person may lawfully use reasonable force to defense himself.

A person being arrested uses reasonable force when he uses that degree of force that he actually believes is reasonably necessary to protect himself from the officer's use of unreasonable or excessive force and uses no more force than a reasonable person in the same situation would believe is necessary for his protection.

(Doc. 95–3 at 7–9 (Fact 9)) As to the charge related...