Buller v. Woodrow et al, No. 5:2017cv06562 - Document 55 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION 45 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/2/2020. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2020)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 BRYAN BULLER, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 CHRIS WOODROW, et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-06562-BLF ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Re: ECF 45] 12 13 Plaintiff, Mr. Bryan Buller, brought this suit against the City of Morgan Hill (the “City”) 14 and three City of Morgan Hill police officers (together with the City, “Defendants”) alleging 15 violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various California state laws arising from his arrest. This case 16 turns on a unique set of facts because unfortunately, Mr. Buller, has passed away since the filing 17 of the Complaint. ECF 51. Upon notification of Mr. Buller’s passing, the Court stayed the case 18 for 30 days to allow Buller’s estate to make an appearance. ECF 52. Because Buller’s estate has 19 made no appearance, and no discovery was conducted by Buller before his passing, the Court 20 issues this Order based on Defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment. The Court has 21 considered the Complaint, Defendants’ briefing, the admissible evidence, and the applicable law. 22 For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART 23 and Buller’s remaining state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. 24 25 26 27 28 I. BACKGROUND A. Plaintiff’s Complaint In the early morning of November 22, 2015, Bryan Buller was driving to his home in the City of Morgan Hill, California. Compl. ¶ 6. Buller claims that when he arrived at a stoplight, he United States District Court Northern District of California 1 was unaware that a police vehicle was behind him. Compl. ¶ 6. When the police officers turned 2 on their sirens behind him, Buller claims that it was unclear that they were directed toward him 3 because this was near a fire station where there was frequent activity. Compl. ¶ 8. Buller claims 4 that despite there being no indication that he was fleeing, that the officers “executed a risky 5 maneuver and attempted to ram plaintiff’s vehicle by driving in front of him.” Compl. ¶ 9. Buller 6 says he became frightened as a result. Compl. ¶ 9. Because Buller was close to his house, he 7 proceeded to drive home slowly and pulled into his driveway. Compl. ¶¶ 9-10. Buller claims that 8 as soon as he got out of the car, Officers Chris Woodrow and Charles Rudisel, without 9 provocation, began striking and beating him with their hands. Compl. ¶ 11. Buller claims that he 10 tried to comply as best he could with inconsistent demands from the officers. Compl. ¶ 12. 11 Regardless, Buller claims the officers, now including Defendant Sergio Pires, sprayed him with 12 pepper spray and continued beating him. Compl. ¶ 13. Further, Buller claims that officers who 13 arrived at the scene later, including Officer Pires, interviewed witnesses, “contradicted and argued 14 with the witnesses and attempted to have them change their stories.” Compl. ¶ 16. When the 15 paramedics arrived, Buller claims that Officer Woodrow “told paramedics to stop and attempted to 16 have plaintiff breathe into a breathalyzer device,” which Buller rejected. Compl. ¶ 17. Buller was 17 then taken to Saint Louise Hospital, where Buller claims it was found that he had fractured ribs, a 18 torn right rotator cuff, a dislocated left shoulder, bulging disks, and numbness in his hands. 19 Compl. ¶ 18. Officer’s Declarations 20 B. 21 At approximately 1:15 a.m. on November 22, 2015, Officers Woodrow and Rudisel were 22 driving northbound on Monterey Road in Morgan Hill in a marked Morgan Hill Police 23 Department Vehicle. Declaration of Chris Woodrow (“Woodrow Decl.”) ¶ 2, ECF 45-2; 24 Declaration of Charles Rudisel (“Rudisel Decl.”) ¶ 2, ECF 45-3. Officers Woodrow and Rudisel 25 noticed a white truck in front of them speeding and weaving in and out of its lane. Woodrow 26 Decl. ¶ 2; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 2. The white truck, with the officers’ vehicle now behind it, 27 approached a traffic light at the intersection of Old Monterey Road and Monterey Road. 28 Woodrow Decl. ¶ 3; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 2. Once the light turned green the officers activated the 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 patrol vehicle’s emergency equipment, specifically, red lights and sirens. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 3; 2 Rudisel Decl. ¶ 2. The driver of the white truck, later identified as Bryan Buller, did not apply his 3 brakes, did not attempt to pull over, and did not activate his turn signal to indicate that he intended 4 to comply with the stop command from Officers Woodrow and Rudisel. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 4; 5 Rudisel Decl. ¶ 3. The vehicle proceeded to turn left and abruptly stopped at the stop sign on Old 6 Monterey Road and Llagas Road near the El Toro Fire Station. Woodrow Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Rudisel 7 Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. The vehicle continued westbound on Llagas Road and made a left turn heading 8 southbound onto Bender Circle. Woodrow Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Rudisel Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. At this point, 9 Officer Woodrow, who was driving, used the northbound lane on Bender Circle travelling south in 10 an attempt to cut off the white truck. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 6; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 4. Noticing that the 11 truck had no intention of stopping, however, Officer Woodrow slammed on his brakes to prevent a 12 collision. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 6; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 4. Officers then saw the garage door at 169 Bender 13 Circle open and the white truck pull into the driveway. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 7; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 5. 14 Officers state that they believed Buller was attempting to flee. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 7; Rudisel Decl. 15 ¶ 5. 16 Officer Woodrow states that once he approached the vehicle, he saw what looked like a 17 black baton, which turned out to be a metal flashlight, on the floor of the driver’s side of Buller’s 18 truck. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 7. Officer Woodrow states that once Buller exited his vehicle, Woodrow 19 continuously ordered him to the ground, yet Buller refused to comply. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 7. Both 20 Officers noticed that Buller was 6’2’’ and approximately 270 lbs. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 8; Rudisel 21 Decl. ¶ 6. Officer Woodrow states that Buller turned to him with his right arm up. Woodrow 22 Decl. ¶ 8. Officer Woodrow perceived this as a threat and struck Buller’s right arm with his baton, 23 which was ineffective. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 8. At this point, Officer Woodrow states that he could 24 smell a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage from Buller’s person. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 8. Officers 25 Woodrow and Rudisel, recognizing the threat, grabbed Buller and pulled him to the ground. 26 Woodrow Decl. ¶ 9; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 6. 27 28 Officer Woodrow states that Buller struck him on the forehead with his right elbow and grabbed Woodrow’s radio microphone and ripped it from his uniform. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 9. 3 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 Buller continued to try to stand up despite officers’ ordering Buller to stay on the ground and place 2 his hands behind his back. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 9; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 7. Officer Woodrow warned 3 Buller that if Buller did not comply, that he would use his taser. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 10; Rudisel ¶ 4 8. Officer Woodrow states that Buller continued to resist, so he removed the cartridge from his 5 department-issued taser and performed a dry stun on Buller’s right shoulder. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 6 10. At this point, Officer Woodrow called for additional units. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 10. Both 7 Officers state that the first drive stun was ineffective, so Officer Rudisel attempted a second drive 8 stun with his taser, which also proved ineffective. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 10; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 9. 9 Officer Rudisel states that Buller continued to try and get up, so he grabbed Officer Woodrow’s 10 baton and hit Buller three times on the back of his left thigh. Rudisel Decl. ¶ 9. At this time, 11 several witnesses emerged from Buller’s residence. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 11. Officer Woodrow 12 states he was concerned that because additional officers had not yet arrived, that “others could 13 potentially join the fray.” Woodrow Decl. ¶ 11. Because Buller was still trying to get up Officer 14 Woodrow deployed his department-issued pepper spray on the right side of Buller’s face for 2-3 15 seconds. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 11; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 10. Officers both state that this too was 16 ineffective. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 11; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 10. 17 Eventually, Officer Rudisel was able to apply his handcuffs to Buller’s left wrist. Rudisel 18 Decl. ¶ 11. According to Officer Woodrow, Buller still attempted to get up, so he grabbed 19 Buller’s collar and forced Buller’s head to the ground. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 13-14. By this time, 20 additional units arrived, including Officer Pires, and the officers were able to complete the arrest. 21 Woodrow Decl. ¶ 14; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 13-14. Buller refused a breath or blood alcohol test on the 22 scene. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 14. A blood test later taken at the hospital showed that Buller had a 23 0.251% blood alcohol content level. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 16; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 12. Buller’s Claims Against the City of Morgan Hill and the Officers 24 C. 25 Buller filed his Complaint against the City of Morgan Hill and three City of Morgan Hill 26 police officers, Officer Chris Woodrow, Officer Charles Rudisel and Officer Sergio Pires (the 27 “Officers”), alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations including unreasonable search 28 and seizure and use of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Compl. ¶ 25. Buller also 4 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 seeks to hold the City liable for these Section 1983 violations and ongoing constitutional 2 violations due to its customs and policies. Compl. ¶ 29. Further, Buller brings a host of derivative 3 state law claims against the Officers (and against the City pursuant to respondeat superior) 4 including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent 5 infliction of emotional distress, and violation of California Civil Code Section 52.1 (the “Bane 6 Act”). Compl. ¶¶ 30-52. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 A. 9 “A party is entitled to summary judgment if the ‘movant shows that there is no genuine Summary Judgment 10 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” City of 11 Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1049 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 56(a)). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty 13 Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine dispute of material fact exists if there is 14 sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. at 248– 15 49. 16 The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of 17 the basis for the motion, and identifying portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to 18 interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of material 19 fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). To meet its burden, “the moving party 20 must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim or 21 defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element 22 to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 23 Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). 24 If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to 25 produce evidence supporting its claims or defenses. Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1103. If the 26 nonmoving party does not produce evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact, the moving 27 party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. “The court must view the 28 evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences in the 5 1 nonmovant’s favor.” City of Pomona, 750 F.3d at 1049. However, “the ‘mere existence of a 2 scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position’” is insufficient to defeat a motion for 3 summary judgment. Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). “Where the record taken 4 as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 5 genuine issue for trial.” Id. (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 6 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). 7 B. 8 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Qualified Immunity damages ‘unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or 10 constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged 11 conduct.’” Wood v. Moss, 134 S.Ct. 2056, 2066–67 (2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. 12 2074, 2080 (2011)). “[T]he Supreme Court has ‘repeatedly . . . stressed the importance of 13 resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.’” Dunn v. Castro, 621 14 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991)). Under the 15 applicable pleading standard, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to make out a plausible claim 16 that it would have been clear to the defendant officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation 17 he confronted. Id. at 2067. “Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense from suit, not 18 merely from liability, ‘[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly 19 established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the 20 commencement of discovery.’” Doe By and Through Doe v. Petaluma City School Dist., 54 F.3d 21 1447, 1449–50 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). 22 In Saucier v. Katz, the Supreme Court set forth a two-part approach for analyzing 23 qualified immunity. 533 U.S. 194, 121 (2001). The analysis contains both a constitutional inquiry 24 and an immunity inquiry. Johnson v. County of Los Angeles, 340 F.3d 787, 791 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 The constitutional inquiry requires the court to determine this threshold question: “Taken in the 26 light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s 27 conduct violated a constitutional right?” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. If the Court determines that a 28 constitutional violation could be made out based on the parties’ submissions, the second step is to 6 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 determine whether the right was clearly established. Id. “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in 2 determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable 3 officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id. at 202. The Supreme 4 Court has clarified that the sequence of analysis set forth in Saucier is not mandatory and that a 5 court may exercise its sound discretion in determining which of the two prongs of the qualified 6 immunity analysis to address first. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 241-42 (2009). Thus, in 7 some cases, it may be unnecessary to reach the ultimate constitutional question when officers 8 would be entitled to qualified immunity in any event, a result consistent with longstanding 9 principles of judicial restraint. 10 The Supreme Court recently reiterated the longstanding principle that a “clearly 11 established” constitutional right “should not be defined ‘at a high level of generality.’” White v. 12 Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017) (quoting al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742). Rather, it must be 13 “particularized” to the facts of the case.” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 14 (1987)). Defining the right at too high a level of generality “avoids the crucial question whether 15 the official acted reasonably in the particular circumstances that he or she faced.” Plumhoff v. 16 Ricard, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2023 (2014). “[A] defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly 17 established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official 18 in the defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was violating it.” Id. “In other words, 19 ‘existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question’ confronted by the 20 official ‘beyond debate.’” Id. (quoting al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741). “A right can be clearly 21 established despite a lack of factually analogous preexisting case law, and officers can be on 22 notice that their conduct is unlawful even in novel factual circumstances.” Ford v. City of Yakima, 23 706 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2013). “The relevant inquiry is whether, at the time of the officers’ 24 action, the state of the law gave the officers fair warning that their conduct was 25 unconstitutional.” Id. 26 III. 27 28 DISCUSSION Defendants move for summary judgment on all of Buller’s claims. See generally Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mot.”), ECF 45-1. As discussed above, the unique circumstances under 7 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 which this motion arises have left the motion unopposed. Therefore, this Court addresses the 2 arguments raised in Defendants’ motion in turn. 3 A. 4 In count one of his Complaint, Buller asserts a claim alleging that Officers deprived him of Constitutional Violations Against the Officers 5 the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures and the right to be free from the use of 6 excessive force protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. “[I]f a constitutional claim 7 is covered by a specific constitutional provision . . . the claim must be analyzed under the standard 8 appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process.” Cty. of 9 Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 843 (1998). Claims for unreasonable seizures and excessive 10 force fall within the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968); Graham v. 11 Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989). Because Buller’s claims for violation of the Fourth and 12 Fourteenth Amendments arise from the same series of events and appear to be limited to 13 allegations of excessive force and unlawful search and seizure, the Court limits its analysis to the 14 Fourth Amendment. 15 Buller’s Fourth Amendment excessive force and unlawful search and seizure claims are 16 discussed below. Due to the unfortunate circumstances of this case, the only admissible evidence 17 available to the Court at summary judgment is the sworn declarations of Officers Woodrow and 18 Rudisel. In its analysis, the Court relies on those declarations, viewed in the light most favorable 19 to Buller. 20 21 1. Excessive force Buller contends that the Officers are responsible for using excessive force against him in 22 violation of the Fourth Amendment. Compl. ¶ 25. As explained above, a government official 23 sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that (1) the 24 official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the 25 time of the challenged conduct. Plumhoff, 134 S.Ct. at 2023 (citing al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. at 2080). 26 Because Buller must succeed on both prongs the Court addresses each in turn. See Nelson v. City 27 of Davis, 685 F.3d 463, 477-78 (9th Cir. 2007). 28 8 1 a. Constitutional violation Turning to the first prong of qualified immunity at summary judgment, Defendants must 2 show that no rational trier of fact could find that the Officers’ use of force violated Buller’s Fourth 3 Amendment rights. If the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Buller, could support a 4 finding of excessive force, then Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the excessive 5 force claim. See Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 701 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). 6 7 8 The Fourth Amendment “guarantees citizens the right to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures of the person.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). “[A]ll claims that law enforcement 9 officers have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard.” Id. at 395; see also City of Hemet, 394 F.3d at 700–01. The “reasonableness” of a seizure depends on how it was carried out. Graham, 490 U.S. at 395. The “objective reasonableness” of an officer’s use of force in a particular case is determined “in light of the facts and circumstances confronting [him], without regard to [his] underlying intent or motivation.” Id. at 396–97. “Because this inquiry is inherently fact specific, the determination 16 whether the force used to effect an arrest was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment should 17 only be taken from the jury in rare cases.” Green v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 751 F.3d 1039, 18 1049 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotations omitted); see also Avina v. United States, 681 F.3d 1127, 19 20 1130 (9th Cir. 2012) (“summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law in excessive force cases should be granted sparingly”). 21 Moreover, the Supreme Court has explained that evaluating an excessive force claim 22 23 24 “requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The calculus of reasonableness must 25 embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second 26 judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of 27 force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id. at 396-97. “The ‘reasonableness’ of a 28 9 1 particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, 2 rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. at 396 (internal quotation marks and citation 3 omitted). United States District Court Northern District of California 4 The Ninth Circuit has articulated a three-step approach to Graham balancing. See 5 Glenn v. Washington Cty., 673 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2011). First, the Court “must assess the 6 severity of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights by evaluating the type and 7 amount of force inflicted.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Second, the Court 8 must “evaluate the government’s interest in the use of force.” Id. Finally, the Court must 9 “balance the gravity of the intrusion on the individual against the government’s need for that 10 intrusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Meredith v. Erath, 342 11 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) (“This standard requires us to balance the amount of force applied 12 against the need for that force.”). 13 Despite the Graham factors and the approach laid out in Glenn, the Court must keep in 14 mind that “there are no per se rules in the Fourth Amendment excessive force context; rather, 15 courts must still slosh their way through the factbound morass of ‘reasonableness.’” See Mattos v. 16 Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 441 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 383 (2007)). 17 The Court embarks on that endeavor as follows. 18 i. Nature and quality of the intrusion 19 First, as to the severity of the intrusion on Buller’s Fourth Amendment rights, the record 20 indicates that the force employed by Officers Woodrow and Rudisel was at least an intermediate 21 use of force because it was capable of inflicting significant pain and causing serious 22 injury. See Young v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that 23 pepper spray and baton blows constitute intermediate force that, “while less severe than deadly 24 force, nonetheless present a significant intrusion upon an individual’s liberty interests.”) 25 Defendants cite Huber v. Coulter, to support their proposition that “[c]ases involving 26 takedowns in which courts have denied qualified immunity have generally involved greater levels 27 of force and significantly greater injuries.” Mot. at 8 (citing Huber v. Coulter, 2015 WL 28 13173223 at *14 (C.D. Cal 2015)). The evidence indicates that Officers Woodrow and Rudisel 10 1 initially tackled Buller to the ground. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 9; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 6; see also Compl. ¶ 2 11. When Buller resisted arrest, the officers used baton strikes, tasers and pepper spray to subdue 3 Buller. Woodrow Decl. ¶¶ 8-11; Rudisel Decl. ¶¶ 8-10; see also Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13. When these 4 attempts failed, Officers Woodrow further forced Buller head to the ground. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 13. 5 6 of force, which intrude upon the Fourth Amendment rights of the individual to varying 7 degrees.” Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867, 878 (9th Cir. 2012). Moreover, “physical blows 8 or cuts often constitute a more substantial application of force than categories of force that do not 9 involve a physical impact to the body.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). 10 United States District Court Northern District of California The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “[t]he police arsenal includes many different types Here, while it is undisputed that Officers used physical force on Buller, “[n]ot every push 11 or shove, even if it may seem unnecessary in the peace of the judge’s chambers, . . . violates the 12 Fourth Amendment.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (internal quotations and citation omitted). The 13 Court, therefore, must consider the amount of physical force used against Buller in light of the 14 governmental interests at stake. 15 ii. 16 Governmental interest in use of force Under Graham v. Connor, the Court evaluates the government’s interest in the use of force 17 by examining three core factors: (1) the severity of the crime at issue; (2) whether the suspect 18 poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; and (3) whether the suspect is 19 actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. 490 U.S. at 396; see also 20 Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1280 (9th Cir. 2001); Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 21 826 (9th Cir. 2010). These factors are not exclusive and are “simply a means by which to 22 determine objectively ‘the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.’” Deorle, 23 272 F.3d at 1280 (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97). In other words, the Court examines the 24 totality of the circumstances and considers “whatever specific factors may be appropriate in a 25 particular case, whether or not listed in Graham.” Franklin v. Foxworth, 31 F.3d 873, 876 (9th 26 Cir. 1994). For example, in some cases the Court may find it necessary to consider the availability 27 of alternative methods of capturing or subduing a suspect. See City of Hemet, 394 F.3d at 701. 28 Here, the totality of circumstances supports a strong governmental interest in the use of 11 1 force during Buller’s arrest. It is true that the Buller was suspected of driving under the influence, 2 which “while certainly not to be taken lightly, was a misdemeanor” and not a violent crime. See 3 Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842, 846 (9th Cir. 1991). That said, the “most important” factor in 4 considering the governmental interest in the use of force under Graham is whether the suspect 5 posed an “immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others.” City of Hemet, 394 F.3d at 702 6 (quoting Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1441 (9th Cir. 1994)); see also Deorle, 272 F.3d at 1281. 7 (“A simple statement by an officer that he fears for his safety or the safety of others is not enough; 8 there must be objective factors to justify such a concern.”). United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Buller was speeding and weaving in and out of his traffic lane. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 2; 10 Rudisel Decl. ¶ 2. When Officers Woodrow and Rudisel, in a patrol car with red lights and sirens 11 activated, attempted to cut off Buller’s truck, Buller increased his speed and drove directly toward 12 the officers’ vehicle.” Woodrow Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6; Rudisel Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4. Further, Buller ignored 13 multiple orders to get on the ground and produce his hands. Woodrow Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9; Rudisel Decl. 14 ¶¶ 6, 7. Throughout the encounter Buller “continually tried to stand up.” Woodrow Decl. ¶ 9; 15 Rudisel Decl. ¶ 8. Further, Buller struck Officer Woodrow on the forehead with his elbow, 16 “causing pain to the rights side of [Woodrow’s] forehead” and ripped the radio microphone from 17 Woodrow’s uniform. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 9. In these circumstances, Defendants argue, the Officers 18 were “justified in using elevated levels of force (baton strikes, taser applications, etc.) in order to 19 gain [Buller’s] compliance.” Mot. at 8. The Court agrees. Defendants’ uncontested evidence is 20 sufficient to indicate that Buller posed an immediate threat to the safety of the Officers at the time 21 of his arrest. 22 The third and final consideration under Graham’s governmental interest factor is whether 23 the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. 490 U.S. at 396. 24 Both officers state that Buller was attempting to flee when he initially exited his vehicle. 25 Woodrow Decl. ¶ 7; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 5. Buller ignored multiple orders to get on the ground and 26 produce his hands. Woodrow Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9; Rudisel Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7. Several times during their 27 encounter, Officers Woodrow and Rudisel state that Buller “continually tried to stand up.” 28 Woodrow Decl. ¶ 9, 10, 13; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 7, 9. These uncontested facts present show that Buller 12 1 2 3 was actively resisting arrest. In sum, the Court concludes that the Officers had a strong governmental interest in the use of force to apprehend Buller. 4 5 iii. In this unique instance where Plaintiff has presented no evidence, the Court concludes that 6 the governmental interests in the use of force against Buller justify the force used against him. 7 Ultimately, the factors above, based on Defendants’ evidence, weigh in favor of finding that the 8 Officers’ use of force was reasonable. Therefore, Defendants did not violate Buller’s Fourth 9 Amendment right against excessive use of force. 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Balancing competing interests b. Clearly established Because there is no triable question of fact regarding the constitutional violation on the 12 excessive force claim, the Court need not determine whether the constitutional violation was 13 clearly established at the time of the arrest. 14 *** 15 In sum, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity and their motion for summary 16 17 18 judgment on the excessive force claim is GRANTED. 2. Unlawful Search and Seizure Against the Officers In his Complaint, Buller further alleges that Officers are responsible for an unlawful search 19 and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Compl. ¶ 25. As explained above, a 20 governmental official sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff 21 shows that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly 22 established” at the time of the challenged conduct. Plumhoff, 134 S.Ct. at 2023 (citing al-Kidd, 23 131 S.Ct. at 2080). Because Buller must succeed on both prongs the Court addresses each in turn. 24 See Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 463, 477-78 (9th Cir. 2007). 25 26 a. Constitutional Violation Under the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth 27 Amendment, (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)), the people are “to be secure in their persons, 28 houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, . . . and no Warrants shall 13 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 issue, but upon probable cause.” Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 369 (2003) (citing U.S. 2 Const. amend. IV). “A warrantless arrest of an individual in a public place for a felony or a 3 misdemeanor committed in the officer’s presence, is consistent with the Fourth Amendment if the 4 arrest is supported by probable cause.” Pringle, 540 U.S. at 369 (citing United States v. Watson, 5 423 U.S. 411, 424 (1976)). “Probable cause to arrest depends on whether, ‘at the moment the 6 arrest was made . . . the facts and circumstances within the arresting officers’ knowledge and of 7 which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in 8 believing that the (suspect) had committed or was committing an offense.’” Adams v. Williams, 9 407 U.S. 143, 148 (1972) (citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964)). 10 As to first prong of qualified immunity at summary judgment, Defendants argue, and the 11 Court agrees, that the Officers did not violate Buller’s Fourth Amendment right against unlawful 12 search and seizure because they had probable cause to arrest Buller. See Mot. at 6. Defendants 13 argue that Officers Woodrow and Rudisel believed Buller violated California Penal Code Section 14 148(a)(1). See Mot. at 6-7; Woodrow Decl. ¶ 14. Section 148(a)(1) provides that every person 15 who willfully resists any peace officer in the discharge of any duty of his or her office or 16 employment shall be punished by fine or by imprisonment or by both that fine and imprisonment. 17 Cal. Pen. Code § 148(a)(1). The evidence shows that Buller was speeding and weaving in and out 18 of its traffic lane and refused to stop for police. Woodrow Decl. ¶¶ 2, 5; Rudisel Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3. 19 Specifically, Officer Woodrow activated his patrol vehicle’s red lights and siren and initiated a “a 20 vehicle code enforcement stop” – but Buller did not pull over. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 4. When 21 Officers Woodrow and Rudisel attempted to cut off Buller’s truck, Buller increased his speed and 22 drove directly toward the officers’ vehicle. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 6; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 4. Once Buller 23 got to his residence, he continued to resist orders to get on the ground, and produce his hands for 24 arrest. Woodrow Decl. ¶ 9; Rudisel Decl. ¶ 7. Defendants’ uncontested evidence is sufficient to 25 establish that Officers’ believed that Buller was violating Section 148(a)(1). Therefore, the 26 Officers had probable cause. Accordingly, the Officers did not violate Buller’s Fourth 27 Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure. 28 14 b. 1 Clearly established Because there is no triable question of fact regarding the constitutional violation on the 2 unlawful search and seizure claim, the Court need not determine whether the constitutional 3 violation was clearly established at the time of the arrest. 4 *** 5 In sum, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity and their motion for summary 6 judgment on the unlawful search and seizure claim is GRANTED. 7 8 9 B. Constitutional Violations Against the City Defendants also seek summary judgment on Buller’s Section 1983 claim against the City. Mot. at 8. Buller seeks to hold the City liable for its policy or practice of “ongoing constitutional 10 violations and practices by defendant officers herein and other Morgan Hill police officers and 11 United States District Court Northern District of California MSOs, consisting of the use of unnecessary and excessive force, false arrests, failure of officers to 12 follow procedures, inadequate internal investigations of police abuse, false reports, destruction of 13 14 15 16 evidence to cover up misconduct, and unequal law enforcement.” Compl. ¶ 28. Defendants respond that “Plaintiff has no evidence that the City of Morgan Hill has engaged in a policy, practice, or custom of violating civil rights.” Mot. at 9. In order to hold the City liable under Section 1983, Buller must show “(1) that he 17 possessed a constitutional right of which he was deprived; (2) that the [City] had a policy; (3) that 18 19 the policy ‘amount to deliberate indifference’ to [Buller’s] constitutional right; and (4) that the policy is the ‘moving force behind the constitutional violation’” Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 20 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992)). 21 22 Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has held that “[i]f no constitutional violation occurred, the municipality cannot be held liable.” Long v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901, 907 (9th 23 Cir. 2007). 24 The Court agrees with Defendants that Buller has provided no evidence that his injuries 25 were inflicted pursuant to an official county policy or custom. Further, as discussed above, there 26 are no constitutional violations. Therefore, the City cannot be held liable. Thus, Defendants’ 27 motion for summary judgment as to the Section 1983 claim against the City is GRANTED. 28 15 C. 1 State Law Claims All of Buller’s remaining claims are predicated on California state law. A district court 2 may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which is has 3 original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 4 (9th Cir. 2010). “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the 5 balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, 6 convenience, fairness and comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the 7 remaining state-law claims.” Sanford, 625 F.3d at 561. In this unique case, the factors weigh in 8 favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction because Buller has passed away and his estate has not 9 made an appearance. Having now granted summary judgment on all the federal claims alleged 10 against Defendants, the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Buller’s remaining 11 United States District Court Northern District of California state law claims. See City of Colton v. Am. Promotional Events, Inc.-West, 614 F.3d 998, 1008 12 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise 13 supplemental jurisdiction after granting summary judgment on all federal claims); see, e.g., 14 Indiveri v. Mack, No. 17-00595 BLF (PR), 2019 WL 1084175, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019) 15 (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim sua sponte). 16 Accordingly, Buller’s state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. 17 18 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, at ECF 45, is 19 GRANTED as to the Section 1983 claims against the Officers and the City. Additionally, the 20 21 Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Buller’s five state law claims. Accordingly, Buller’s state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: March 2, 2020 25 26 27 28 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 16
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
