Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield
| Docket Number | 1:18-cv-01512 JLT CDB |
| Decision Date | 26 October 2023 |
| Parties | TAMETRIA NASH-PERRY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al, Defendants. JASON OKAMOTO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (DOC. 172)
Tametria Nash-Perry and Jason Okamoto seek to hold Bakersfield Police Officer Alejandro Patino and the City of Bakersfield liable for the fatal shooting of Christopher Okamoto under federal and state law. (See generally Docs. 38, 44.) The Court held a jury trial in this action. At the close of Plaintiffs' evidence, Defendants made an oral motion for judgment as a matter of law, which was taken under submission. (See Doc. 149.) After the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the Court declared a mistrial. (Doc. 157.) Defendants now renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 172.) Plaintiffs oppose the motion asserting a reasonable jury could find in their favor. (Doc 174.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
On August 19, 2018, Christopher Okamoto was 21 years old and lived with his girlfriend Britney Saucedo and her infant daughter at 4809 Hahn Avenue, apartment number 46. (Doc. 172-1 at 8-9, citations omitted.) At the time of the events, Saucedo reported that she and Okamoto were drinking, and Okamoto was drunk. (Doc. 172-2 at 23.) She also testified they were arguing that night. (Id. at 27.)
Edward White and Melissa Contreras, who lived in the apartment next door, heard Okamoto and Saucedo arguing. (Doc. 172-2 at 34-35, 48.) White testified he heard arguing “throughout the whole day.” (Id. at 9.) Contreras reported that she fell asleep and “woke up to loud noises.” (Id. at 48.) Contreras testified, (Id.) White also stated that “it sounded like they were grabbing each other,” and there was “furniture being moved around the house.” (Id. at 42.) He said it sounded like “somebody wrestling against the wall.” (Id.) Contreras asked White to call the police, and he called 911 at 11:27 p.m. (Id. at 38-40, 48.) In the 911 call, White told the dispatcher that he believed the female in the apartment was being choked. (Id. at 43, 49.)
Bakersfield Police Officers Patino and Celedon were dispatched in response to the call. (Doc. 172-2 at 9, 54.) The dispatch transmission directed the officers to “respond to a 273.5 in progress,” which Patino explained is the “code for domestic violence.” (Id. at 79; see also Doc. 172-1 at 9.) Dispatch indicated “a male was choking a female.” (Id.) Celedon arrived first at the apartment complex with his canine partner, and Patino arrived shortly after at approximately 11:34 p.m. (Id. at 9, 54.)
Patino and Celedon looked for apartments 43 and 45-the apartment numbers erroneously identified by dispatch-when White encountered the officers and “pointed them in the right direction to Apartment 46.” (Doc. 172-1 at 9-10; see also Doc. 172-2 at 54-55.) After White directed Patino and Celedon to apartment 46, he walked back to his own apartment. (Doc. 172-2. at 56.) The officers did not get any information directly from White regarding what was occurring in the reported apartment, or ask any details regarding the call received from dispatch. (Id. at 55.) It took approximately one minute, or less, from the time the officers encountered White to the time he returned to his own apartment. (Id. at 56.)
The officers did not speak about a tactical plan before walking toward apartment 46, which was on the second floor at the complex. (Doc. 172-2 at 56; Doc. 174-1 at 8.) Patino started up the stairs first, and Celedon followed taking the position of a cover officer. (Doc. 172-2 at 10-11.) Celedon explained that as a cover officer, his responsibility was to be in a position to assist Patino “in the event ... [his] life was threatened or in danger.” (Id. at 11.) Patino estimated that from the time they encountered White to the time he arrived at the top of the stairs was “about 30 seconds to a minute.” (Id. at 56; see also Doc. 174-1 at 8.) There was a landing at the top of the stairs in front of apartment 46, which Patino estimated to be about five feet long, though Patino acknowledged it could be a bit larger or smaller. (Id. at 57.)
Patino testified that when he arrived on the scene, he did not hear any sounds that reflected someone was being choked. (Doc. 174-1 at 17.) He said he heard sounds of arguing for ten seconds or less, but he could not decipher anything being said. (Id. at 10.) Patino reported that he rang the doorbell and pounded on the door with his fist. (Id. at 61-62.) Patino said he heard a thud inside the apartment and said something to Celedon, but did not radio for backup. (Id. at 10-11.)
Saucedo stated that Okamoto was awake when they heard the knock on the door.[2] (Doc. 172-2 at 30.) She later told the police that Okamoto was angry and mad when they heard a knock on the door. (Id. at 26.) Okamoto yelled statements to the effect of, “Who the fuck is at my door?” (Id. at 22, 45, 61.) Okamoto retrieved his gun from a closet, and ran to the door. (Id. at 21.) Saucedo stated that she saw Okamoto “raising his gun.” (Id. at 22.) It is now undisputed that Okamoto held, what appeared to be a real gun, but it was not.
Patino testified he heard steps coming toward the door and could see the handle turn through the security door. (Doc. 172-2 at 64.) Patino reported that when the door cracked open, he saw the muzzle of a gun-which he believed was “a real firearm”- pointed at him. (Id. at 64-65.) According to Patino, once the door opened completely, Okamoto stood with his “right arm fully extended out,” with his “right shoulder ahead of his left shoulder.” (Id. at 66.) Patino stated Okamoto's gun was pointed at his head. (Id. at 77.) From his perspective, Celedon did not see Okamoto holding a firearm. (Doc. 174-1 at 31.)
Patino reported that when he saw the muzzle of Okamoto's gun, his own gun was still holstered. (Doc. 172-2 at 67.) He said it took a “split second” and was a “quick process” to unholster his weapon. (Id. at 67-68.) When he unholstered his gun, he activated the flashlight on the weapon, which was done “just by tightening [his] grip on it with [his] middle finger.” (Id. at 67.) Patino did not retreat or give any verbal commands to Okamoto after he saw the gun. (Id. at 68, 77.)
Patino fired six times at Okamoto in a first volley of shots. (Doc. 172-2 at 71.) He estimated the barrel of his gun was about three feet from Okamoto during this first volley. (Id. at 72.) Patino testified that “Okamoto took a step back,” after which Patino paused. (Id. at 73.) Patino testified Okamoto's arm remained “fully extended” and the firearm was “still ... in the same position,” pointed at him. (Id. at 73-74.) Patino then fired a second volley of shots. (Id.) Between the two volleys of shots, there were no verbal communications between Okamoto and Patino. (Id. at 75.)
Dr. Robert Whitmore, a forensic pathologist, performed the autopsy on Okamoto. (Doc. 176 at 4.) Okamoto was shot six times, and Dr. Whitmore identified entrance wounds on the anterior left trapezius muscle (which he explained was the front side of the neck), the anterior left shoulder, and the anterior left upper arm. (Id. at 20.) Dr. Whitmore explained that aside from the primary entrance wounds there were smaller fragment wounds, which he attributed the bullets traveling through the screen door before striking Okamoto. (Id. at 18.) He also identified “a graze gunshot wound” on Okamoto's right cheek. (Id. at 19, 28.) There were no injuries or trauma to Okamoto's right arm or hand. (Id. at 29.) Dr. Whitmore concluded the cause of death was “multiple gunshot wounds” and “manner of death is homicide, death at the hands of another.” (Id. at 7.)
The Court held a trial beginning on January 9, 2023. Prior to the matter going to the jury, Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a). (Doc. 149.) The motion was taken under submission by the Court. (Id.) After the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, the Court declared a mistrial on January 19, 2023.[3] (Doc. 157.)
On February 14, 2023, Defendants renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b). (Doc. 172.) Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion on March 2, 2023 (Doc. 174), to which Plaintiffs filed a reply on March 10, 2023. (Doc. 177.)[4] Defendants also filed a notice of new case authority in support of the motion on June 5, 2023. (Doc. 182.)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for judgment as a matter of law where a party, “fully heard on an issue during a jury trial,” has not established a “legally sufficient evidentiary basis” for its claim, such that no “reasonable jury” could find for that party on the issue. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1); see also El-Hakem v. BJY Inc., 415 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). A motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) “must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(2). In addition, the motion must be made before the case is submitted to the jury. Id. If the court does not grant a Rule 50(a) motion during a trial, the matter is deemed submitted to the jury “subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P 50(b).
When as here, a jury does not reach a verdict, a party may renew the motion post-trial within 28 days of the jury being discharged. Fed. R. Civ. P 50(b). Thus, Rule 50(b)...
To continue reading
Request your trial