190 Cal. App. 4th 801
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Lujano was arrested June 2, 2006 in Isla Vista on a Penal Code §148 obstructing investigation charge after protesting her cousin's detention; a crowd formed as deputies investigated.
- Deputy Munana grabbed Lujano's left wrist to handcuff her while Deputy Clark restrained her right arm; Lujano resisted and hair pulled during the process.
- Lujano was diagnosed and treated for a broken right arm and later booked into juvenile hall; the criminal matter was resolved by six months of informal probation under Welfare and Institutions Code §654.
- Lujano filed state-law and §1983 claims for false arrest and excessive force against the County, Munana, Ward, Regents, and Clark.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the County and denied liability to the individual officers, applying Heck v. Humphrey and finding probable cause and qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck bars §1983 excessive force and related claims | Lujano argues Heck does not bar her claims since termination was not favorable. | County/defendants contend informal probation constitutes favorable termination, precluding §1983 relief. | Yes, Heck bars the claims; informal probation is not favorable termination. |
| Whether Lujano’s §654 probation is a favorable termination | Lujano asserts termination favors civil relief. | Defendants argue §654 resolution lacks innocence and thus not favorable. | No; §654 termination is not favorable termination for §1983 purposes. |
| Whether there is a triable issue of fact on excessive force | A jury could infer Munana caused injury by manipulating both arms. | Munana’s actions were only to handcuff; Ward did not participate. | No triable issue; Munana’s force was reasonable and Ward uninvolved. |
| Whether Ward’s non-interference supports liability | Ward failed to prevent the alleged excessive force. | Ward had no role in the arrest and no opportunity to intercede. | Ward is not liable; no realistic opportunity to intercede. |
| Whether County liable on any theory independent of the officers | County could be liable for ineffective supervision or policy. | No evidence of County policy or supervision violations; no liability on theory presented. | Waived/No basis for County liability given lack of officer violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (limits §1983 claims until conviction overturned; not cognizable otherwise)
- Yount v. City of Sacramento, 43 Cal.4th 885 (Cal. 2008) (favorable termination requirement applied to §1983 excessive force claims; applies to no contest pleas)
- Pattiz v. Minye, 61 Cal.App.4th 822 (Cal. App. 1998) (favorable termination must reflect innocence or meritlessness)
- Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp., 4 Cal.App.4th 857 (Cal. App. 1992) (favorable termination requires lack of merit or innocence)
- Nuno v. County of San Bernardino, 58 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (absent favorable termination, §1983 action barred)
- Susag v. City of Lake Forest, 94 Cal.App.4th 1401 (Cal. App. 2002) (supports not treating residual doubt as favorable termination)
- Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2002) (mere presence not §1983 liability; need personal involvement)
- Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292 (9th Cir. 1996) (rejects team effort/collective liability for excessive force)