Juricich v. Cnty. of San Mateo
| Decision Date | 29 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-06413-WHO |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | MICHAEL JURICICH, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff Michael Juricich brings claims arising out of a police encounter that occurred in San Carlos, California on December 1, 2018. He seeks to hold the County of San Mateo ("County"), the County of San Mateo Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff's Office"), and individual deputies David Brandt, Lisandro Lopez, and Michael H. Koehler liable for allegedly injuring him and violating his civil rights. Before me are defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and Juricich's motion for partial summary judgment on the objective reasonableness of the deputies' conduct under the Fourth Amendment.
For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED on Juricich's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim as well as all related state law claims and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") claim involving the arrest because they were entitled to perform a Terry stop, the force used to stop Juricich was not excessive, and they did not realize that Juricich had a colostomy bag until after his arrest. Juricich's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED. And, at a minimum, they would be entitled to qualified immunity for Juricich's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. However, there is a dispute of facts material to whether defendants were told that there was an issue with his colostomy bag after the arrest. For that reason, summary judgment is denied with respect to his post-arrest ADA claim.
There are two dash-cam videos that disclose much of evidence in this case: one from Brandt's patrol vehicle and the other from Lopez.1 The parties largely agree on the facts, but their versions of the events differ in some respects. The major disagreements are whether Juricich appeared agitated during his encounters with Brandt, Koehler and Lopez, which is not a material dispute, and what happened to Juricich and his colostomy bag after arrest, which is.2
The underlying events occurred on December 1, 2018. At approximately 4:00 p.m., Michelle Gore, Juricich's domestic partner for eight years, executed an illegal U-turn in front of Brandt's patrol vehicle. She did so after seeing Juricich walking on the sidewalk. Declaration of Peter H. Cruz in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Cruz Decl.") [Dkt. No. 65-1], Ex. G (Gore Dep.) at 71:15-18. Brandt initiated a traffic stop; he turned on his lights and followed her vehicle until she pulled over. Id., Ex. A (Brandt Dep.) at 77:25-78:18; id., Ex. B (Brandt Dash-Cam Footage) at 00:1-44.
Brandt began providing Gore with instructions via his patrol vehicle loudspeaker to proceed further northbound on El Camino Real/State Route 82 ("SR-82") near Brittan Avenue and pull over where it was safe because she stopped in the number two lane of traffic. Brandt Dash-Cam Footage at 0:44-0:48. She did so. But before Brandt brought his patrol vehicle to a complete stop, Juricich crossed from the unpaved sidewalk in front of the moving patrol vehicle and approached Brandt's driver's side door. A startled Brandt said, "Hey!" toward Juricich. Id. at 00:45-00:48.
Brandt testified that he heard Juricich say "cite her, cite her" as Brandt was still bringing his patrol vehicle to a stop. Brandt Dep. at 87:1-15. Juricich does not dispute that he said those words; he does dispute the manner in which he said them. See Helbraun Decl., Ex. F (Juricich Dep.) at 137:22-24; id., Ex. J (Gore Dep.) at 73:18-19.
Brandt exited his patrol vehicle as Juricich approached and instructed Juricich to return to the sidewalk. Juricich did not immediately comply. Brandt Dash-Cam Footage at 00:50-54. At this point, Juricich was face-to-face with Brandt, who was standing outside the driver side of the patrol car. Juricich can be distinctly heard to say ". . . cheating on me." Id. at 00:52-00:54. Brandt then touched Juricich to get him to move back to sidewalk. Juricich yelled, "Don't fucking touch me!" Id. at 00:55-1:00; Brandt Dep. at 99:01-04, 101:19-102:04; Juricich Dep at 139:4-5.
Juricich then returned to the sidewalk. Brandt Dash-Cam Footage at 1:00-1:04. Brandt, who was the only officer present at the scene, radioed for assistance "due to a possible domestic" at approximately 4:03p.m. He had not yet spoken to Gore. Id. at 1:04-1:05; Cruz Decl., Ex. H (CAD Communications) at CSM 000016. Upon reaching the unpaved sidewalk on the right shoulder, Juricich started walking northbound on SR-82, turned around to say something in Brandt's direction, and then continued walking away. Brandt Dash-Cam Footage at 1:05-1:15. Brandt added "verbal for now" to the radio dispatcher. Id. at 1:14-1:15.
Lopez and Koehler responded to Brandt's call. Lopez saw Juricich walking down the right shoulder of SR-82 and radioed to dispatch that he had made contact with Juricich at approximately 4:07 p.m. CAD Communications at CSM 000017. Staying in his vehicle, Lopez followed Juricich on the right shoulder of SR-82. Cruz Decl., Ex. C (Lopez Dash-Cam Footage) at 00:45-00:55. When Koehler pulled his marked patrol car approximately fifteen to twenty feet in front of where Juricich was walking, id. at 00:55-1:00, Lopez used his wail siren three separatetimes right behind Juricich and parked. Lopez Dash-Cam Footage at 00:54-00:58. Juricich did not react to the wail siren and continued walking northbound on the SR-82 shoulder toward Koehler's now-parked patrol vehicle. Id. at 0:58-1:04. Koehler exited his patrol vehicle from the driver's seat and walked toward rear of his vehicle to intercept Juricich. Id.
Koehler put his right hand out as he walked toward Juricich. Juricich did not stop and continued to walk northbound on SR-82. Lopez Dash-Cam Footage at 1:00-1:04. As Juricich continued to walk, Koehler grabbed Juricich's left arm; Juricich pulled his arm away. Id. at 1:04-1:06. Koehler then grabbed Juricich around the back of his neck and tried to take him down to the ground. Once he got Juricich onto the ground, Koehler put Juricich in an arm bar control hold and placed him in handcuffs. Id. at 1:06-1:24. Lopez exited his patrol vehicle to assist Koehler in bringing Juricich into custody. Id. at 1:07-1:24. Juricich was placed under arrest for violating California Penal Code section 148(a)(1). Cruz Decl., Ex. I (Misdemeanor Report) at CSM 000008, 000013.
Juricich has a colostomy bag. It was under his clothes and not visible prior to and at the time of arrest. See Lopez Dash-Cam Footage at 0:46-2:12. Once Juricich was in handcuffs on the side of the road, Lopez conducted a pat-down search to make sure Juricich did not have any weapons. Id. at 2:12-2:44. At that point, Lopez learned of Juricich's colostomy bag. Cruz Decl., Ex. E (Lopez Dep.) at 186:04-15; 187:06-22.
Juricich asserts that the deputies, and later jail personnel, denied his request to adjust his colostomy bag. Defendants contend that Juricich made no complaints about it. Juricich testifies that it was not until he was placed in his cell, with others, that he was unhandcuffed and able to examine the damage caused by Koehler's take down and try to re-attach his colostomy bag. He had to do this in front of others, exposing his abdomen and stoma. Juricich Dep. at 180:18-181:15. He claims that the colostomy bag was damaged during his arrest and would not stay attached if he sat down. As a result, he had to remain standing in the cell for approximately eight hours until he was released around 2:00 a.m. Id.
Juricich asserts the following causes of action in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"): (i) section 1983 against Brandt, Koehler, and Lopez3; (ii) violation of California Civil Code section 52.1 against all defendants; (iii) negligence against all defendants; (iv) assault against Lopez and Koehler; (v) battery against Lopez and Koehler; and (vi) ADA against all defendants. SAC ¶¶ 40-76. Defendants moved for summary judgment and Juricich moved for partial summary judgment on the objective reasonableness of Brandt, Lopez, and Koehler's conduct under the Fourth Amendment. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defs MSJ") [Dkt. No. 65]; Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("Juricich Partial MSJ") [Dkt. No. 69]. I heard argument on January 13, 2021.
Summary judgment on a claim or defense is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In order to prevail, a party moving for summary judgment must show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to an essential element of the non-moving party's claim, or to a defense on which the non-moving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant has made this showing, the burden then shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to identify "specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. The party opposing summary judgment must present affirmative evidence from which a jury could return a verdict in that party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).
On summary judgment, the court draws all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the non-movant. Id. at 255. In deciding the motion, "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge." Id. However, conclusory and speculative testimony does not raise genuine issues of fact and is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial