Opinion
2:22-cv-00585 WBS JDP
06-11-2024
VERONICA MCLEOD, individually and as successor in interest to decedent, DOLORES HERNANDEZ; AMADO HERNANADEZ; individually and as successor in interest to decedent, DOLORES HERNANDEZ; and YSIDRA REGALDO, individually, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF REDDING; GARRETT MAXWELL, an individual; MATTHEW BRUCE, an individual; and DOES 2-10, inclusive, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs Veronica McLeod and Amado Hernandez, individually and as successors-in-interest to decedent, and Ysidra Regaldo, individually, brought this § 1983 action against defendants City of Redding, Garrett Maxwell, and Matthew Bruce, alleging several constitutional and state law violations in connection with the police detention and shooting of decedent Dolores Hernandez. (Docket No. 1.) Defendants now move for summary judgment. (Docket No. 27.)
Veronica McLeod and Amado Hernandez are decedent's adult children. Ysidra Regaldo is decedent's mother.
Because there is a video recording of the entire incident (recorded by a witness in a car parked across the driving lane behind Hernandez's vehicle), the court relies largely on that recording to understand the events that occurred, but resorts to other evidence in the record where helpful to provide additional information or context.
On December 2, 2020, at approximately 6:27 p.m., officers Bruce and Maxwell were called to the Discovery Village Shopping Center in Redding, California to respond to a report of a woman -- decedent Dolores Hernandez (hereinafter “Hernandez”) -- who had used foul language and created a disturbance at the Center and then left to sit in her vehicle in the Center's parking lot. (See Defs.' SUF (Docket No. 32) ¶ 1; Bruce Dep. (Docket No. 36-5) at 9:12-18; Maxwell Dep. (Docket No. 36-3) at 25:13-19.)
Bruce approached the vehicle and spoke with Hernandez for approximately one minute without any weapons drawn. (Incident Video (Exhibit C to Patel Decl., Docket No. 29) at 0:00-1:15.) During the conversation, Hernandez “rolled her window down approximately two inches and became uncooperative and argumentative with [Bruce] (telling him that he was a ‘murderer,' and that she did not have to speak with him).” (Defs.' SUF ¶ 10.) Bruce asked for Hernandez's driver's license and Hernandez “told [Bruce] she was not driving and did not have to give him ‘shit.'” (Id. ¶ 12.) Bruce later stated that based on Hernandez's “erratic” behavior during their conversation, he believed she was “[n]ot . . . of right or sound mind,” possibly due to drug use or a “mental health problem.” (Bruce Internal Affairs Interview (Docket No. 36-6) at 9:368-12:531.)
Hernandez reversed the vehicle a few feet past the end of the parking stall while Bruce and Maxwell stepped to the left side of the parking stall from the perspective of the driver, apparently to allow her to leave. (Id. at 1:18-1:24; see also Bruce Dep. at 62:10-13; Maxwell Dep. at 36:16-22.) As they were walking away, the car stopped reversing and moved forward, swerving counterclockwise towards the officers. (Incident Video at 1:24-1:27.) Bruce hastened his pace, apparently to avoid getting hit by the vehicle, and the vehicle stopped a few feet away from his body. (See id. at 1:26-1:27; see also Bruce Dep. at 30:16-17.) The vehicle briefly stopped moving and Hernandez “screamed ‘fuck you' and extended both of her middle fingers.” (See Incident Video at 1:27-1:28; Defs.' SUF ¶ 16.)
Bruce next took out his baton. (Incident Video at 1:28-1:29.) The car began to reverse again and Bruce started to hit the window with the baton. (Id. at 1:30.) The vehicle briefly halted when Bruce started to hit the window (which did not break), then continued to reverse, but did so while moving in a counterclockwise direction such that the front of the vehicle moved closer to Bruce. (Id. at 1:30-1:33; see also Bruce Dep. at 38:4-6.) Maxwell moved towards the rear left wheel and stabbed the tire with his knife. (Incident Video at 1:33-1:34; Maxwell Dep. at 40:16-18.) At almost the same moment, Bruce suddenly fell to the ground face forward and the front left tire ran over his left leg. (Incident Video at 1:34-1:36; see also Bruce Dep. at 40:4-17; Phillips Dep. (Docket No. 36-8) at 27:6-10; Bell Dep. (Docket No. 36-9) at 23:16-25.) Maxwell drew his gun and aimed it at the driver's side window. (Incident Video at 1:37.) As Bruce was lying on the ground after being run over, positioned at most a few inches from the tire that had run over his leg, he told Maxwell to shoot Hernandez. (See id.; Bruce Dep. at 46:1-10.)
It is disputed whether the car stopped on Bruce's leg or rolled over it quickly, as the video does not clearly enough show the manner in which the wheel ran over his leg. Two witnesses testified that the tire did not stop on Bruce's leg (Phillips Dep. at 27:6-13; Bell Dep. at 23:10-25), while Bruce testified that the tire remained on his leg and pinned him down (Bruce Dep. at 45:6-9).
After Maxwell drew his firearm, the vehicle moved slightly forward and then stopped. (Incident Video at 1:38.) Maxwell fired a volley of seven shots without providing any verbal command or warning to Hernandez. (See id. at 1:38-1:39; Maxwell Dep. at 17:17-21.) In the middle of the volley, the car moved slowly forward while Bruce crawled away from the car on all fours, and the car stopped when it ran into a nearby parked car. (Id. at 1:39-1:43.) After the car stopped, Bruce repositioned himself so that he was lying on his back and clutching his left leg. (Id. at 1:42-1:48.)
Hernandez died as a result of the gunshot wounds. (See Autopsy Report (Docket No. 36-11).)
II. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is proper “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). A material fact is one “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,” and a genuine issue is one that could permit a reasonable trier of fact to enter a verdict in the non-moving party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). While the moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986), the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
III. Federal Claims
Plaintiffs' opposition brief states that they “voluntarily dismiss” the third claim alleging denial of medical care under the Fourth Amendment, and fifth, sixth, and seventh claims alleging municipal liability. (Docket No. 36 at 2 n.1.) Accordingly, the court will grant defendants' motion for summary judgment on the abandoned claims. See Est. of Shapiro v. United States, 634 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on claims abandoned by plaintiff).
Remaining are the first and second claims under § 1983 alleging unlawful detention and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, respectively; fourth claim under § 1983 alleging violation of the substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; eighth claim alleging battery under California law; ninth claim alleging negligence under California law; and tenth claim alleging violation of the Tom Bane Act, Cal. Civil Code § 52.1. Because plaintiffs have abandoned their municipal liability claims, the only remaining defendants are officers Bruce and Maxwell. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on all claims, including qualified immunity on the excessive force and substantive due process claims.
Defendants do not seek qualified immunity on their § 1983 unlawful detention claim.
A. Excessive Force
“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001).
The Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts -- and the Ninth Circuit in particular -- not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 104 (2018) (quoting City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015)). “Because use of excessive force is an area of the law in which the result depends very much on the facts of each case, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless existing precedent ‘squarely governs' the specific facts at issue.” Est. of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles, 96 F.4th 1209, 1218 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Kisela, 584 U.S. at 104) (cleaned up).
Here, the court concludes that there is no clearly established law indicating that the use of deadly force in these circumstances was unlawful. To the contrary, controlling Ninth Circuit precedent -- which the officers here were entitled to reasonably rely upon -- establishes that an officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment when he shoots the driver of a vehicle after observing his partner get run over by the vehicle and his partner remains at immediate risk of being struck by that vehicle.
The Ninth Circuit case Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010), is the most directly on point. There, two officers -- Key and Torres -- approached the driver of a stolen vehicle on foot. As described by that court:
Key attempted to open the driver-side front door and fell on the ground about the same time as the minivan started moving in reverse. The front of the minivan swung toward the driver side, and the rear of the minivan swung toward the passenger side. The wheels on the minivan were spinning and throwing up mud. After one to two seconds, . . . Key got up and ‘walked[ ] or jumped out of the way . . . so he wouldn't get ran (sic) over.' Once he saw Key fall down, Torres yelled at the driver to stop. Torres believed that Key had been run over. The minivan continued to back up, and Torres began shooting through the passenger-side window. After a slight pause during which he assessed the situation, Torres continued firing at the driver of the minivan.Id. at 549. The Ninth Circuit -- applying the rule that courts look to the “totality of the circumstances” in determining whether a use of force was “objectively reasonable,” see Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989) -- concluded that officer Torres did not violate the Fourth Amendment because an officer facing such circumstances could reasonably believe the vehicle posed a “deadly threat.” See Wilkinson, 610 F.3d at 553.
Many of the salient facts here are strikingly similar to those in Wilkinson. Most importantly, as in Wilkinson, Maxwell saw his partner fall down and perceived that he had been run over (as he had, in fact, been run over). Also as in Wilkinson, Maxwell perceived that his partner remained in the vehicle's path. See Wilkinson, 610 F.3d at 551 (officer had reasonable fear that driver posed a threat because his “fellow officer was nearby either lying fallen on the ground or standing but disoriented” while the driver “attempted to accelerate within close quarters of two officers on foot”).
As Maxwell testified at deposition, he drew his firearm “when [he] observed” that Bruce's leg had been “crushed” by “that front left tire.” (Maxwell Dep. at 65:5-10.) Maxwell also stated in his internal affairs interview that immediately prior to the shooting, he believed Hernandez was “clearly going to drive over [Bruce],” “crushing his legs further” and possibly “kill[ing] him.” (Maxwell Internal Affairs Interview (Docket No. 36-4) at 13:598-610.) Maxwell's statements about his perception of the danger the vehicle posed to Bruce are uncontradicted by any evidence in the record and are fully supported by the video recording.
It was entirely reasonable for Maxwell to believe that the use of deadly force was lawful because his partner was lying on the ground in the vehicle's path. Indeed, that Bruce was in danger of being run over by the vehicle is the only conclusion the court can draw based on the incident recording, which the court has had the benefit of watching numerous times with the ability to pause, rewind, and slow down the video. As clearly depicted in the video recording, Bruce was lying on the ground at most a few inches from the very tire that had just run him over, while essentially pleading for his life by asking Maxwell to shoot decedent.
Bruce asking Maxwell to shoot decedent cannot be heard on the video, but the parties do not dispute that Bruce made that statement.
It is only common sense that “[a] moving vehicle can of course pose a threat of serious physical harm” where “someone is at risk of being struck by it.” See Orn v. City of Tacoma, 949 F.3d 1167, 1174 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Villanueva v. California, 986 F.3d 1158, 1172 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that the use of deadly force was not unlawful in Wilkinson because the officer confronted a “chaotic” situation in which, inter alia, “the officer who shot the driver had good reason to believe that another officer was . . . not able to easily move out of the way of an oncoming car no matter its speed”); Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 794, 796-97 (9th Cir. 2014) (reversing grant of summary judgment for defendant because, unlike in Wilkinson, the officer -- who was inside the vehicle while decedent was driving under ten miles per hour -- “was not on foot next to a vehicle that might run him over at any moment should it have accelerated” and “did not express concern that his partner was vulnerable to being run over”) (citing Wilkinson, 610 F.3d at 551-52).
Plaintiffs argue that Bruce was not actually in danger prior to the shooting because the wheel had rolled over Bruce's leg (rather than stopping on top of his leg) and was not trapping him under the vehicle. However, Bruce was plainly on the ground in the vehicle's path; whether the car had briefly stopped on top of his leg or run quickly over his leg makes no difference. Further, “even if [Bruce] was in fact out of harm's way by the time of the shooting . . . the critical inquiry is what [Maxwell] perceived.” See Wilkinson, 610 F.3d at 551; see also Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (“[t]he ‘reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight”).
Because it was reasonable for Maxwell to believe Bruce was in danger, this case is easily distinguishable from those cited by plaintiffs in which the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity to officers who used deadly force on drivers. In Orn, the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity because “a reasonable jury could conclude both that [the officer] was never in the path of [decedent's] vehicle and that he fired through the passengerside windows and rear windshield as the vehicle was moving away from him,” and even if the vehicle was moving towards him, the officer “could simply have stepped back to avoid being injured.” 949 F.3d at 1178.
In Villanueva, the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity because a jury could conclude that the driver fatally shot by officers was operating the vehicle “cautiously,” was 1520 feet away from the officers, and was driving slowly without the vehicle “aimed” at any officer. 986 F.3d at 1171. In Acosta v. City and County of San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity to the officer because the driver was neither driving fast nor directing his vehicle at the officer. 83 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 1996), as amended (June 18, 1996).
This case is also distinguishable from the non-binding authority cited by plaintiffs. In Kirby v. Duva, the Sixth Circuit denied qualified immunity to officers who shot a driver who “was moving slowly and in a non-aggressive manner, could not have hit any of the officers, and was stationary at the time of the shooting.” 530 F.3d 475, 482 (6th Cir. 2008). In Smith v. Cupp, the Sixth Circuit denied qualified immunity because a jury could conclude that “no person at the scene was ever in danger” and that the officer “fired as he ran toward the driver side of the car after the car passed him.” 430 F.3d 766, 774 (6th Cir. 2005). Finally, in Kosakoff v. San Diego, the district court denied qualified immunity because a jury could conclude that the driver was “backing away from the officers” and therefore “there was no longer any threat to the officers.” No. 08-cv-1819 UEG NLS, 2010 WL 1759455, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2010).
Unlike the above authorities cited by plaintiffs, the instant case presents a situation in which Maxwell “saw [Bruce] fall, thought [Bruce] had been run over, and was afraid” that the vehicle would again run Bruce over. See Wilkinson, 610 F.3d at 551. As the Ninth Circuit explained in Wilkinson, an officer could “reasonably believe that the [vehicle] posed a deadly threat” under these circumstances, justifying the use of deadly force. See id. at 553.
Plaintiffs present various arguments as to why the use of force was unreasonable, suggesting that defendants should have given verbal warnings to Hernandez before resorting to force, or that defendants should have used less intrusive means to control the situation, especially given that decedent was mentally ill. These arguments ignore that the officers here confronted a “tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving” situation in which they believed that decedent posed a risk to their physical safety. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Under the chaotic, apparently life-threatening circumstances presented here, it was not “feasible” for the officers to pause to issue warnings or to deliberate on factors such as what medical conditions decedent may have had and what alternative tactics may or may not have been available. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1985). In the now famous words of Justice Holmes, “[d]etached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 343 (1921).
The Supreme Court has taught us that qualified immunity protects “‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.'” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)); see also Kisela, 584 U.S. at 104 (same). For the reasons discussed above, this court cannot in good conscience brand these defendants as plainly incompetent, nor can it send the public message that they knowingly violated the law. Accordingly, the court grants the officers qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.
The court has doubts about whether a detention -- as distinct from the use of deadly force -- is cognizable as a standalone Fourth Amendment claim in a survivor's action. See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174 (1969) (“Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which . . . may not be vicariously asserted.”); Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1998) (“In § 1983 actions, however, the survivors of an individual killed as a result of an officer's excessive use of force may assert a Fourth Amendment claim on that individual's behalf if the relevant state's law authorizes a survival action.”). Nevertheless, because the question was not discussed in the parties' briefing, for purposes of this motion the court assumes that such a claim is cognizable and addresses the merits.
Plaintiffs argue that Bruce smashing the car window with his baton and Maxwell deflating one of the car tires with a knife constituted an illegal detention because the officers did not have probable cause. Defendants argue that they had probable cause to arrest decedent for assault with a deadly weapon. See Cal. Penal Code § 245(a)(1).
“To determine whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest, [courts] examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to probable cause.” Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 56-57 (2018) (quoting Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003)) (cleaned up). “Because probable cause deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances, it is a fluid concept that is not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Id. (quoting Pringle, 540 U.S., at 371; Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983)) (cleaned up).
Here, it is not clear from the video whether decedent intentionally drove at the officers, or whether she simply made an error in driving because she was not expecting the officers to have moved towards her car. Further, the vehicle stopped and did not make contact with either officer prior to the officers attempting to gain control of the vehicle. Based on the evidence before the court, a jury could conclude that the officers lacked probable cause to believe decedent had committed assault with a deadly weapon. See McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The factual matters underlying the judgment of reasonableness generally mean that probable cause is a question for the jury, and summary judgment is appropriate only if no reasonable jury could find that the officers did or did not have probable cause to arrest.”) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the court will deny summary judgment on the unlawful detention claim.
It is important to note that whether the officers had probable cause prior to their attempts to gain control of the vehicle is a separate question from that of the reasonableness of the use of deadly force. The Supreme Court has unequivocally rejected the Ninth Circuit's former “provocation rule” that “ma[de] an officer's otherwise reasonable use of force unreasonable if (1) the officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation and (2) the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation.” See County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 581 U.S. 420, 426-27 (2017) . Thus, even if the officers lacked probable cause to detain plaintiff at the beginning of the incident and unnecessarily escalated the situation by doing so, their use of deadly force once decedent had run over Bruce with her car was nonetheless protected by qualified immunity, as discussed above.
C. Substantive Due Process
Plaintiffs contend that defendants interfered with their right to familial association under the substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the rubric of substantive due process, plaintiffs must ultimately show that the officers' conduct “shocks the conscience -- a standard that requires more of the plaintiffs than the Fourth Amendment excessive-force standard often applied in police shooting cases.” Ochoa v. City of Mesa, 26 F.4th 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2022) .
Where, as here, the situation confronted by an officer involved “‘fast paced circumstances presenting competing public safety obligations'” and “‘escalate[d] so quickly that the officer [had to] make a snap judgment,'” courts apply the “purpose-to-harm” test. See id. (quoting Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131, 1137) (9th Cir. 2008)) (alterations in original). This is not a case where “actual deliberation [by the officers] is practical,” and therefore the “deliberate indifference” standard does not apply. See Wilkinson, 610 F.3d at 554 (holding that the purpose-to-harm standard “clearly” applied to “a situation involving an accelerating vehicle in dangerously close proximity to officers on foot”); see also Porter, 546 F.3d at 1137 (applying purpose-to-harm standard to minutes-long incident during which officer used deadly force on driver accelerating towards officer, even though officer later testified that he did not perceive a high likelihood of being harmed by the vehicle). The purpose-to-harm test “requires a more demanding showing that the officers acted with a purpose to harm the decedent for reasons unrelated to legitimate law enforcement objectives,” which include “arrest, self-protection, and protection of the public.” Ochoa, 26 F.4th at 1054 (cleaned up).
Plaintiffs have not pointed to any evidence indicating that the officers acted with a purpose to harm unconnected to legitimate law enforcement objectives. To the contrary, the video of the encounter shows that the officers initially approached decedent to speak with her without any weapons drawn and then moved away from the car to allow her to leave. And as already discussed, the use of deadly force was motivated by the desire to protect the safety of an officer. Cf. A.D. v. Cal. Highway Patrol, 712 F.3d 446, 457-58 (9th Cir. 2013) (agreeing with jury's conclusion that officer had purpose to harm and therefore violated substantive due process when he emptied his gun at driver who was either stationary or driving away from officers, officers were not in vehicle's path, and other officers at the scene testified that they did not feel their safety was threatened).
Accordingly, the court concludes that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the familial association claim, as plaintiffs have not put forth any evidence that might tend to show the officers acted with a purpose to harm. For the same reason, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim. See Porter, 546 F.3d at 1140 (where there is no genuine dispute that the purpose-to-harm test applies, the availability of qualified immunity “turns on whether [plaintiffs] can present facts to the district court that would justify a jury finding that [defendants] acted with an unconstitutional purpose to harm”).
IV. State Claims
A. Negligence
Under California law, police officers have a duty “to act reasonably when using deadly force.” Hayes v. County of San Diego, 57 Cal.4th 622, 628 (2013). “The reasonableness of an officer's conduct is determined in light of the totality of circumstances,” including “the officers' preshooting conduct.” Id. at 629, 638. “[P]reshooting circumstances might show that an otherwise reasonable use of deadly force was in fact unreasonable.” Id. at 630. California negligence law is “broader” than the Fourth Amendment excessive force analysis, which typically focuses on the officer's conduct “at the time of shooting” and does not examine the officer's “pre-shooting decisions.” Tabares v. City of Huntington Beach, 988 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2021) .
The evidence here is sufficient to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers' pre-shooting conduct negligently escalated the situation, culminating in the use of deadly force. See Tabares, 988 F.3d at 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2021) (denying summary judgment on California negligence claim where jury could conclude that officer's tactical decision making did not take into account that decedent was mentally ill and unnecessarily escalated the encounter); see also Grudt v. City of Los Angeles, 2 Cal.3d 575, 587 (1970) (“even if the jury believed that [decedent] accelerated his automobile toward [officer], they might have found negligence on the part of the officers in interpreting the circumstances as necessitating a shotgun blast and four rounds from a revolver, designed to kill”).
Accordingly, the court will deny summary judgment on plaintiffs' negligence claim.
B. Battery
To maintain a state law battery claim against a police officer, “a plaintiff must prove that the [officer's] use of force was unreasonable.” Brown v. Ransweiler, 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 527 (4th Dist. 2009). This requires the same “totality of the circumstances” inquiry applied to negligence claims, discussed above. See Hayes, 57 Cal.4th at 638 (state tort law considers “the totality of circumstances surrounding the shooting, including the officers' preshooting conduct”); Villalobos v. City of Santa Maria, 85 Cal.App. 5th 383, 389 (2d Dist. 2022) (evaluating both battery and negligence claims against police officers under the reasonableness standard articulated in Hayes); Koussaya v. City of Stockton, 54 Cal.App. 5th 909, 937 (3d Dist. 2020) (same); see also Cal. Civ. Jury Instr. 1305B (explaining that in determining whether a police officer's use of deadly force constituted a battery, jurors must consider the “totality of the circumstances . . . including the conduct of [the officer] leading up to the use of deadly force”).
Because the court has determined that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the officers' actions were unreasonable under California law, the court will deny the motion for summary judgment on the battery claim.
C. Tom Bane Act
The Tom Bane Act, Cal. Civil Code § 52.1, requires that defendants had “specific intent” to violate plaintiffs' rights. See Cornell v. City & County of San Francisco, 17 Cal.App. 5th 766, 801 (1st Dist. 2017). This requirement may be satisfied by demonstrating that the officers acted with “reckless disregard of constitutional or statutory prohibitions or guarantees.” See Id. at 803-04; see also Reese v. County of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030, 1045 (9th Cir. 2018).
The evidence shows that Officer Bruce attempted to smash the window and Officer Maxwell attempted to puncture the tire of a vehicle that had not hit either of them and was either stationary or moving very slowly, without trying to communicate with the driver or move out of the vehicle's path. A jury could conclude that these actions evidence reckless disregard to decedent's right to be free from unreasonable seizure. See Cornell, 17 Cal.App. 5th at 804 (specific intent standard was satisfied where officers had doubts about existence of probable cause but nonetheless detained plaintiff rather than taking the “opportunity to exercise restraint”). Accordingly, the court will deny summary judgment on the claim brought under the Tom Bane Act.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 27) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED as to the second claim alleging excessive force and fourth claim alleging violation of substantive due process. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.