Ochoa v. Cnty. of Kern

ALEJANDRO OCHOA, an individual, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, a municipal entity; DEPUTY BROCK Badge No. 201765, an individual; DEPUTY ANDREW BASSETT Badge No. 202312, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

No. 1:18-CV-01599-JLT-CDB

United States District Court, E.D. California

February 21, 2023

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A NEW TRIAL (DOC. 131)

On November 19, 2018, Alejandro Ochoa filed a complaint against the County of Kern, Deputy Ryan Brock, and Deputy Andrew Bassett under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the Deputies used excessive force when seizing him on January 27, 2018. (Doc. 1 at 1-3.) Ochoa brought claims for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and state law claims for negligence and battery. (Id. at 1.) Beginning on October 31, 2022, the Court held a five-day jury trial. During trial, Ochoa stipulated to dismissal of the battery claim. (Doc. 135 at 128.) At the close of evidence, Ochoa made a motion for judgment as a matter of law. (Doc. 134 at 659.) On November 8, 2022, the jury returned a verdict for the Defendants on the remaining claims. (Doc. 125.) On December 7, 2022, Ochoa renewed his motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and, in the alternative, motioned for a new trial. (Doc. 131.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion in its entirety.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Although the parties agree about the major events that occurred during the Deputies' confrontation with Ochoa, the parties' briefs set forth contradictory versions of many details surrounding the events. In accordance with the standards of review for a Rule 50(b) motion, the below summary of the events recounts the totality of the evidence, and where contradictions exist, the Court takes the version most favorable to Defendants.^[1]

On January 27, 2018, Deborah Ochoa, the estranged wife of Alejandro Ochoa, received a text message from her daughter that Ochoa was inside the residence with her. (Doc. 131-2 at 2.) Deborah called 9-1-1 and informed the dispatcher of Ochoa's presence in the home and the existence of an outstanding no-bail warrant for Ochoa's arrest. (Id. at 2; Doc. 142-1 at 33.) Through texts with her daughter, Deborah also informed the dispatcher that she did not believe Ochoa had weapons in the home but that he would not allow her daughter or the two others in the house to leave. (Doc. 131-2 at 2.) The 9-1-1 dispatcher relayed the information to responding officers, including Deputies Brock and Bassett. (Doc. 142-1 at 32.) Deputies Brock and Bassett testified that they received additional information prior to arrival at the residence. They were informed that Ochoa's outstanding no-bail warrant resulted from a charge for felony spousal abuse, for which Ochoa failed to appear. (Id. at 9, 33.) The responding officers also received information that it was uncertain whether Ochoa had a weapon in the residence. (Id. at 10, 34.)

When the Deputies arrived outside the residence, they announced their presence and gave numerous commands and warnings to Ochoa to come out and submit to arrest. (Doc. 142-1 at 3536.) When Deputy Bassett arrived, he saw a female in a window in the house. (Id. at 8, 35.) He instructed the female open the window to escape, but she was unable to do so. (Id.) She appeared frightened. (Id.) Deputy Bassett believed “there were people inside that house that were not able to leave and being held against their will.” (Id. at 8.) The responding officers waited for Deborah Ochoa to arrive with the house key, which they used to gain access inside the home.^[2] (Id. at 38.)

After entering the home, officers rescued the three known occupants that Ochoa was holding hostage, but they were unsure whether Ochoa had other hostages in the home. (Doc. 1421 at 8.) Ochoa locked himself in the bathroom prior to the officers entering the home. (Doc. 135 at 47-49.) Before entering the bathroom officers gave multiple commands and warnings, in Spanish and English, for Ochoa to exit the bathroom with his hands on his head. (Doc. 142-1 at 13, 16.) Both outside the home and outside the bathroom, Deputy Bassett, who handles a police canine named Hero, instructed Hero to bark to alert Ochoa of his presence. (Id. at 36-39.) Ochoa refused to comply with officers' instructions or heed their warnings. (Id. at 16.) When officers breached the bathroom door, Ochoa was seated on the toilet, screaming with his shorts pulled up and with his hands near his waistband. (Id. at 13-14, 22.) Officers had not yet had an opportunity to search Ochoa or the bathroom for weapons. (Id. at 10, 24.) Additionally, they could not see all areas of the bathroom. (Id. at 15.)

Deputy Brock gave Ochoa two or three commands to show his hands and to put them over his head. (Doc. 142-1 at 12.) Ochoa did not comply. (Id. at 13.) Deputy Brock then fired a 40 mm less-than-lethal round, aiming for Ochoa's torso. (Doc. 142-1 at 13-14.) Ochoa stood while the shot was fired, and it struck him in the testicle. (Doc. 133 at 136-37.) Deputy Brock and another officer managed to get Ochoa face down on the ground. (Doc. 135 at 13; Doc. 142-1 at 7.) Ochoa continued to physically struggle against the attempts to detain him. (Doc. 142-1 at 7.) Deputy Bassett released Hero to subdue Ochoa, who bit him in the arm and shoulder, and this allowed officers to effectuate the arrest. (Id. at 3, 7; Doc. 131-3 at 12.)

After a five-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. (Doc. 125.) The special verdict form shows that the jury found neither Deputy Brock nor Bassett used excessive force against Ochoa or acted negligently. (Id. at 1-2.) Ochoa filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial contending insufficient evidence exists to support the jury verdict. (Doc. 131.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Motions for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) do not stand alone, but rather are renewed Rule 50(a) motions. If the trial judge denies or defers ruling on a Rule 50(a) motion during trial, and if the jury then returns a verdict against the moving party, that party may renew its motion under Rule 50(b). A party seeking judgment as a matter of law has a “very high” standard to meet. Costa v. Desert Palace, 299 F.3d 838, 859 (9th Cir. 2002). A motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) is appropriate when the “evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion, and that conclusion is contrary to the jury's verdict.” Martin v. Cal. Dep't of Veterans Affs., 560 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009); Josephs v. Pacific Bell, 443 F.3d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir. 2006).

A jury verdict “must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence . . . even if it is also possible to draw a contrary conclusion.” Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 2002). In this context, “substantial evidence” means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Fisher v. City of San Jose, 558 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). “[Credibility, inferences, and factfinding are the province of the jury, not [the] court.” Costa v. Desert Palace, 299 F.3d 838, 859 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. EEOC v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009). However, “a reasonable inference cannot be supported by only threadbare conclusory statements instead of significant probative evidence . . . Consequently, JMOL is appropriate when the jury could have relied only on speculation to reach its verdict.” Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah Cnty., 556 F.3d 797, 802-03 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). “While the court must review the entire evidentiary record, it must . . . disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.” Harper v. City of L.A., 533 F.3d 1010, 1021 (9th Cir. 2008). The court gives credence to evidence in favor of the moving party only if it is “uncontradicted and unimpeached” and “comes from disinterested witnesses.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 151 (2000). ///

III. DISCUSSION

Ochoa contends that the jury's verdict and its finding that the Deputies did not use excessive force “were against the clear weight of the evidence.” (Doc. 131 at 2.) Although the jury made findings as to both the Fourth Amendment excessive force claims and the negligence claims, Ochoa's motion only addresses the legal standards for the Fourth Amendment claims. Therefore, the Court limits its discussion to the Fourth Amendment claims.

A. Excessive Force under the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable seizures. Whether the seizure of a person was unconstitutionally unreasonable turns on an objective standard evaluating all the facts and circumstances confronting the officers. Bryan v. Macpherson, 630 F.3d 805, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2010). The standard balances the “nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests' against the countervailing government interest at stake.” Id.; see also Estate of Aguirre v. Cnty. of Riverside, 29 F.4th 624, 628 (9th Cir. 2022). “Stated another way, we must balance the amount of force applied against the need for that force.” Bryan, 630 F.3d at 823-24.

The objective reasonableness assessment of a particular use of force requires a three-step inquiry. Glenn v. Wash Cty., 673 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2011). It necessitates evaluation of (1) the type and amount of force used; (2) the government's countervailing interests in the need to...