Martin v. City of San Jose
3:19-cv-01227
N.D. Cal.May 3, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Andy Martin alleges that on May 2, 2018 Officer Ribeiro struck and/or backed a police vehicle over him, causing pelvic and right-ankle injuries. The officer admits hitting Martin but disputes intent and that he backed over him.
- Claims: a § 1983 excessive-force claim against Officer Ribeiro; California Bane Act and negligence claims against the City of San Jose (the City’s liability is premised on Ribeiro acting within the scope of employment).
- Parties stipulated that Ribeiro was a City police officer acting under color of law and that the incident occurred on May 2, 2018 and caused the listed injuries.
- The Court issued proposed jury instructions addressing burdens of proof (preponderance; clear and convincing), elements for § 1983 excessive-force, Bane Act, negligence, causation as a "substantial factor," and punitive damages (availability/standards).
- The Court declined to give a separate "deadly force" instruction, adopting Ninth Circuit guidance that Fourth Amendment reasonableness governs use-of-force claims without a separate deadly-force rule; it also noted punitive damages cannot be awarded against a public entity under California law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Element required to prove a "seizure" / excessive-force under the Fourth Amendment | Martin: Ribeiro intentionally hit and/or backed over him, supporting a seizure/excessive-force claim | Ribeiro/City: any contact was accidental or negligent, not an intentional seizure | Court: Instruction requires intentional act to constitute a "seizure"; negligence/accident is insufficient for § 1983 seizure element (plaintiff must prove intentional action) |
| 2) Standard for excessive force | Martin: force used was excessive and unconstitutional | Ribeiro/City: force was objectively reasonable given the circumstances | Court: Applies Ninth Circuit objective-reasonableness test with multi-factor analysis (nature of offense, threat, resistance/flight, time to decide, force used, alternatives, relative culpability, warnings, de-escalation opportunities, etc.) |
| 3) Bane Act mens rea — whether reckless disregard suffices | Martin: Bane Act liability can be based on reckless disregard | City: Bane Act requires specific intent to deprive rights | Court: Instructs Bane Act requires intent to deprive enjoyment of protected rights; court notes California authority (and Screws) treat reckless disregard as falling within the concept of willful/specific intent in some contexts, and frames Bane Act elements accordingly |
| 4) Punitive damages: availability and standard | Martin: seeks punitive damages for harms | City/Ribeiro: punitive damages are limited; City (public entity) not liable under state law; standards differ by claim | Court: Punitive damages may be awarded against Officer Ribeiro on the § 1983 claim by preponderance; punitive damages are not available against the public entity (City) under California law for state-law punitive awards, and state-law punitive damages (if applicable) require clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lashley, 1 Cal. App. 4th 938 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (explaining that specific intent can encompass reckless disregard for constitutional rights)
- Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1945) (specific intent requires intent to deprive a person of a clearly established right)
- Harper v. City of L.A., 533 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2008) (proximate cause may be found where defendant's act was a substantial factor in producing injury)
- Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2002) (substantial-factor causation suffices for liability)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (rejecting a rigid, separate deadly-force rule and reaffirming Fourth Amendment reasonableness framework)
- Acosta v. Hill, 504 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining Scott overruled prior Ninth Circuit authority requiring separate deadly-force instruction)
- Lam v. City of San Jose, 869 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2017) (applying Scott to hold separate deadly-force instruction not required)
- Torres v. City of Madera, 524 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing when an "honest mistake" may be relevant to reasonableness analysis)