Roberson v. City of Hawthorne
| Decision Date | 29 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CV 19-6913 DMG (JPRx) |
| Citation | 516 F.Supp.3d 1033 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | Herman ROBERSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HAWTHORNE, et al., Defendants. |
Na'Shaun Neal, Peter Laurence Carr, IV, PLC Law Group APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.
Alison Stevens, Hawthorne City Attorney's Office, Hawthorne, CA, Emily B. Suhr, Paul B. Beach, Raymond W. Sakai, Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC, Glendale, CA, for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Brian Lazorek, Jerome Michalczak, and the City of Hawthorne's Motion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ"). [Doc. # 31.] The motion is fully briefed. [Doc. # 39 ("Opp."), 41 ("Reply").] The Court held a hearing on the motion on January 29, 2021. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the MSJ.
Plaintiff Herman Roberson initiated this action on August 8, 2019. Complaint [Doc. # 1]. The Complaint alleges claims for relief against Lazorek and Michalczak under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for excessive use of force and unlawful arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as well as state law claims for negligence, assault and battery, and a violation of California's Bane Act. Id. The Complaint also asserts a Monell claim for municipal liability against the City of Hawthorne. Id. Defendants filed the instant MSJ on December 2, 2020, seeking summary judgment on all causes of action.
Lazorek and Michalczak are officers with the Hawthorne Police Department. At approximately 9:18 a.m. on the morning of November 1, 2018, they both received a radio dispatch reporting a domestic disturbance at 14135 South Cerise Avenue, Apt. 105 ("the Apartment"). SUF 19. The dispatch relayed that a 911 caller had reported that her cousin's boyfriend was engaged in a verbal argument with other members of the family. SUF 20. At approximately 9:23 a.m., Michalczak arrived at the Apartment. SUF 21. From the hallway outside, he could hear a loud verbal argument and screaming coming from inside the Apartment. SUF 26. He decided to wait outside for Lazorek to arrive before attempting to investigate, noting that family disturbance calls are generally dangerous. SUF 25. Upon Lazorek's arrival, they knocked on the door, which was answered by Rhonda Luckett. SUF 28-32. When she opened the door, the officers observed Roberson walking around the living room area in an "excited defiant state." SUF 33, 37.
Almost immediately after answering the door, Luckett and Roberson continued loudly arguing over each other, making it difficult to understand what either was saying or for the officers to ask them questions. SUF 35, 47, 164; Luckett Decl., Ex. A ("Audio Recording") [Doc. # 32].2 Nonetheless, Luckett was able to communicate that the Apartment belonged to her daughter, who was at work, and that she was there to watch her toddler grandchildren, who were present at the time. SUF 38, 42. She told the officers that Roberson does not live at the Apartment, but that he arrived early that morning "kicking on the door" and "hollering and screaming," and that she let him in because the children identified him as their father. SUF 36, 40-41, 44. One of the officers asked Luckett if her daughter—the resident of the Apartment and mother of the children—had a restraining order against Roberson, and Luckett responded, "Yeah, he's on parole or something," adding that he is not supposed to be in contact with police. Audio Transcript at 27:3-6. Neither officer observed anything or received information suggesting any physical violence or threats of violence had occurred. SUF 162-63. They both stood in the doorway of the Apartment. SUF 165.
The officers soon asked both Roberson and Luckett to step outside. SUF 48. Roberson did not comply, and the officers increased the authoritativeness of their commands, repeatedly telling him to "[g]et out" and "[c]ome here" and at one point saying, "don't make this get any worse." SUF 54, 56, 62; Audio Transcript at 32:9, 17. Roberson responded with, variably, "I'm not going to go nowhere," "come get me," "come get all of us then," and saying he was going to go take a shower. SUF 50, 53, 55, 57. He also twice shouted that the officers were going to "kill [him] like Trayvon Martin." SUF 35. Eventually though, after multiple requests,3 Roberson complied and exited the Apartment. SUF 62-63. Shortly after exiting, and before saying anything else, Roberson then said, "Let me get my shoe," and turned back towards the door. SUF 65, 179.
At this point, Michalczak grabbed Roberson in an attempt to handcuff him. SUF 66, 171. In response, Roberson pulled his hand away. SUF 175. On the audio recording, one of the officers is heard saying, "Put your—don't start, don't start," after which there are muffled sounds. Audio Recording 4:30-40. Michalczak then threw Roberson against the wall, placed him in a headlock, and tackled him to the ground. SUF 68, 176, 178. It is undisputed that Roberson did not fight back. SUF 68. When on the ground, Michalczak pinned Roberson with his weight on Roberson's neck. SUF 180. According to Roberson, after being tackled, he voluntarily put his arms behind his back for Michalczak. SUF 68. According to Luckett though, he swung his arms "like [he] didn't want to give up his hands." SUF 77. While on the ground, Lazorek then came over and straddled Roberson, placing his knee on Roberson's lower thigh and buttock and grabbing his arms to handcuff him. SUF 180-81. After Roberson was handcuffed, he sat on the floor of the hallway outside the Apartment. SUF 80. The entire altercation, from the time Michalczak first contacted Roberson until he was handcuffed and sitting on the floor, lasted about two to three seconds. SUF 81.
The officers took Roberson into custody for violating California Penal Code section 148(a)(1), which prohibits resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer. SUF 92, 182. The Los Angeles County District Attorney charged Roberson with battery on a police officer and resisting a police officer with force, in violation of Penal Code sections 243(c)(2) and 69. SUF 185. On November 21, 2018, Roberson's criminal preliminary hearing was held before the Los Angeles County Superior Court. SUF 99. Michalczak testified for the prosecution as its only witness. SUF 102. Following his testimony, the state court dismissed the charges because it found that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence that Roberson had committed a crime, independent of resisting, that would give the officers authority to detain him. Suhr Decl., Ex. P ("Hearing Transcript") at 15:12-16:16. In particular, the court found that there was "no evidence that [Roberson] doesn't have a lawful right to be there" and "no evidence of violence or threat of violence." Id. at 15:3-4. Therefore, there was "nothing to indicate that Roberson was obligated to come out" of the Apartment when ordered to do so by the officers. Id. at 15:12-18. The court concluded that "under the Fourth Amendment, there must be specific articulable facts to this defendant," and "because I've heard no such evidence, the People have failed in producing evidence on the element of the offense, the officers lawfully performing their duty." Id. at 15:19-16:5.
Summary judgment should be granted "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) ; accord Wash. Mut. Inc. v. United States , 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. Nat'l Ass'n of Optometrists & Opticians v. Harris , 682 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Liberty Lobby , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party has met its initial burden, Rule 56(c) requires the nonmoving party to "go beyond the pleadings and by [his or] her own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ " Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), (e) ); see also Norse v. City of Santa Cruz , 629 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc ) (). "In judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence." Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. , 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). "Rather, it draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Id.
As an initial matter, Defendants provide additional evidence relating to the Hawthorne Police Department's training and disciplinary procedures. SUF 126-48. Roberson responds to all of these statements of fact only by saying he concedes his Monell claim, and he does not address the claim in his Opposition. The Court therefore GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the Monell claim against the City of Hawthorne.
To state a valid section 1983 claim against an individual, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) a person acting under the color of state law has (2) deprived him of a right secured by the United States Constitution or federal law. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan , 526 U.S. 40, 49–50, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999). There is no dispute here that Michalczak and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stroud v. Gore
... ... Gore, ... Detective Lizarraga, Sergeant Michalke, Detective Shea, and ... the City of San Diego Paramedics Services. See ECF ... No. 1. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed ... See, e.g. , Roberson v. City of Hawthorne , ... 516 F.Supp.3d 1033, 1044 (C.D. Cal. 2021) (“[T]he ... ...
-
In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.
... ... Wyshak v. City Nat. Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979). But based on intervening case law, "this Court and ... ...