Porter v. Sergeant Munoz in His Individual Capacity
| Decision Date | 01 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2:16-CV-01702 LEK |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | LASONJA PORTER, Plaintiff, v. SERGEANT MUNOZ in his individual capacity, DOES 1-10 in their individual capacities, CITY OF DAVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF DAVIS, Defendants. |
On August 1, 2018, Defendants Michael Munoz ("Munoz") and the City of Davis1 ("the City," collectively "Defendants") filed their Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion"). [Dkt. no. 34.] Plaintiff Lasonja Porter ("Plaintiff") filed her memorandum in opposition on September 5, 2018, and Defendants filed their reply on September 11, 2018. [Dkt. nos. 36, 45.] Plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition on October 4, 2018, and Defendants filed a supplemental reply on October 11, 2018. [Dkt. nos. 45, 49.] The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to L.R. 230(g) of the Local Rules of the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of California ("Local Rules"). On October 18, 2018, this Court issued an entering order ruling on the Motion. [Dkt. no. 51.] The instant Order supersedes that entering order. Defendants' Motion is hereby granted for the reasons set forth below.
The instant case arises out of the February 26, 2016 search of the residence that Plaintiff shares with her son, non-party Cairo Jones ("Jones"), and one of her other children. The parties agree that, at the time of the search, Munoz was a Lieutenant with the Davis PD. On February 25, 2016, Munoz began working on the investigation of a residential burglary and battery. [Defs.' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Supp. of Summary Judgment ( ), filed 9/5/18 (dkt. no. 37), at ¶¶ 1-2; Mem. in Opp., Pltf.'s Response to Def.'s [sic] Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts ("Pltf.'s SOF") at ¶¶ 1-2 (admitting Defs.' ¶¶ 1-2).] According to Munoz, Jones was a possible suspect in the investigation because the victim made a positive identification of Julio Meneses ("Meneses"), a known associate of Jones's, and Jones matched another description given by the victim. [Motion, Evidence in Supp. of Defs.' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion Evidence"), Exh. 1
[Defs.' SOF at ¶ 5; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 5.] He also confirmed the Davis address where Jones resided with Plaintiff. [Defs.' SOF at¶¶ 6, 15; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶¶ 6, 15.] In light of the terms of Jones's probation, Munoz did not obtain a search warrant. [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 8; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 8.] Plaintiff acknowledges that, at the time of the relevant events in this case, she was aware of Jones's probation status and that their residence was subject to a warrantless probation search. [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 27; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 27.]
On February 26, 2016, Munoz and Davis PD Detectives Bellamy, Helton, and Infante went to Jones's and Plaintiff's residence to conduct a search to determine whether Jones violated the terms of his probation by associating with Meneses. [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 7; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 7.] Detective Helton wore a body-camera that recorded the search. [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 10; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 10.] The recording was shown to Plaintiff during her deposition, and she confirmed that it shows the February 26, 2016 search of her residence. [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 13; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 13.] Defendants submitted a DVD containing a copy of the recording, which is split into two digital files,3 with the Motion. [Motion, Notice of Lodging Video Recordings in Supp. of Motion (dkt. no. 34-3); Notice of Lodging Document in Paper, filed 10/18/18 (dkt. no. 53) (replacement DVD).]
Munoz asserts that, at the time of the search, he "had information that a 2005 investigation led to the discovery of an illegal 'sawed-off' shotgun at this residence and a 2014 investigation led to the discovery of an illegal MAC-10 'sub-machine gun' assault weapon in one of the bedrooms"; and this meant that the residence posed an "increased safety risk." [Munoz Decl. at ¶¶ 9, 16.4]
Once at Jones's residence, Munoz knocked on the front door and waited approximately twenty seconds, but there was no response. [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 14; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 14.] He then called out through an open window next to the front door: "Hey Lasonja, this is Davis P.D." [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 16 (internal quotation marks omitted); Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 16.] After approximately twenty more seconds, Plaintiff responded from inside: "Yeah, what do you want?" [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 17 (internal quotation marks omitted); Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 17.] Munoz said they were there for a compliance check and asked if Jones was home. Plaintiff said that Jones was not, and she said she was not dressed. [Defs.' SOF at ¶¶ 18-19; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶¶ 18-19.] However, Munoz did not know whether Plaintiff was in fact theonly person in the residence. [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 40; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 40.]
Still talking through the window, Munoz asked Plaintiff if she would be willing to get dressed. [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 0; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 20.] Plaintiff responded, "not really, because I'm sick, what's going on?" [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 21 (internal quotation marks omitted); Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 21.] Munoz repeated that they were there for a compliance check. Munoz also asked Plaintiff if she had seen Meneses, but Plaintiff said she had not. Munoz again asked Plaintiff to get dressed so that they could conduct the compliance check. Plaintiff told him to wait because she had to get dressed and she only had the use of one arm.5 [Defs.' SOF at ¶¶ 22-25; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶¶ 22-25.] Munoz said "ok" and continued to wait outside until Plaintiff opened the door approximately five minutes later. [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 26; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 26.] She again asked what they were there for, and Munoz repeated that they were checking to see if Jones was in compliance with the terms of his probation. Munoz and other Davis PD detectives entered the residence. [Defs.' SOF at ¶¶ 28-30; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶¶ 28-30.] Munoz told Plaintiff, "no" several times, and instructed her to "step aside." [DVD, File 1 at 8:00-8:02.] Immediately thereafter, Plaintiff says: [Id. at 8:03-8:06.] During this exchange, Plaintiff and Munoz are not visible on the video footage because they were inside the doorway, while Detective Helton and the body camera were still outside.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff was trying to block the officers' path by walking in front of them and refusing to get out of the way. [Defs.' SOF at ¶¶ 31-32.] Munoz told Plaintiff to "stop" multiple times, but she continued to walk in front of them, through the living room and towards the hallway leading to the bedrooms. [DVD, File 1 at 8:07-8:10.] However, according to Plaintiff, there was limited available space because of the layout of the furniture, and she had to walk further into the residence in order to get to an area where she could step to the side and allow the officers to pass. [Pltf. Decl. at ¶¶ 18-20.]
As Plaintiff walked towards the hallway, Munoz told her "stop" a number of times, but she did not comply. Also during that time, Plaintiff told the officers that she was going to her room, but Munoz told her: "No, you're not." After that, Munoz can be seen reaching his left hand towards Plaintiff's left armand then swinging his arm back toward the living room. Pointing, Munoz says: "C'mon over here." Plaintiff responds: [DVD, File 1 at 8:06-8:21.] When this interaction occurred, Munoz and Plaintiff were at the front of the hallway that led to the bedrooms.
Defendants argue Munoz touched Plaintiff's arm for less than a second when he was ordering her to return to the living room ("Hallway Contact"). [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 35.] However, in her description of the Hallway Contact, Plaintiff states Munoz "grabbed" her, and that "[h]is touching of [her] again cause[d her] great pain." [Pltf. Decl. at ¶ 24.] Plaintiff argues the Hallway Contact "caus[ed] her to spin around." [Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 35.] Defendants contend the Hallway Contact is the only support for Plaintiff's claim that Munoz used excessive force, [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 37,] but Plaintiff argues Munoz grabbed her twice, [Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 37].
After the Hallway Contact, Munoz moved past Plaintiff in the hall in such a way that he did not touch her. Munoz and Detective Bellamy ordered Plaintiff to go back to the living room, but she refused to do so. [Defs.' SOF at ¶¶ 38-39; Pltf.'s SOF at ¶¶ 38-39.] Plaintiff yelled at Munoz, "you don't tell me what to do!" [Defs.' SOF at ¶ 39 (internal quotation marksomitted); Pltf.'s SOF at ¶ 39.] Because Jones lived there, and his whereabouts were unknown, Munoz suspected that Jones may have been in one of the bedrooms. Further, because Meneses had not been found, and he was a known associate of Jones, Munoz suspected that Meneses may also have been in one of the bedrooms. These suspicions were also based on the fact that Plaintiff appeared to be trying to stall the search and/or obstruct him from conducting the search. [Munoz Decl. at ¶¶ 13-15.] The officers asked Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial