Opinion
Nos. C 02-05422 WHA, C 02-04529.
June 20, 2003.
JUDGMENT
For the reasons stated in the June 20 summary-judgment order, judgment is hereby ENTERED against plaintiff and for defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ORDER ENTERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF INTRODUCTION
In these two cases filed by plaintiff pro se against the San Francisco Police Department and an officer thereof, summary judgment is entered against plaintiff on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter "the City").STATEMENT
The instant actions arise from plaintiff's arrest, on two occasions, by the San Francisco Police Department. An officer of the San Francisco Police Department arrested plaintiff on May 4, 2002, for his behavior in Portsmouth Square, a city park. Plaintiff was formally charged with loitering in an area where children congregate (Cal. Penal Code 653g) and for engaging in acts that annoy or molest children (Cal. Penal Code 647.6). His case proceeded to trial, and a jury acquitted him. Plaintiff filed an action, C 02-04529 WHA in federal court on September 17, 2002, alleging that his rights had been violated by his arrest and prosecution.
Plaintiff was subsequently arrested or cited on several occasions for loitering in the North Beach Playground and the playground area of Portsmouth Square. The subsequent arrest at issue in this litigation occurred on November 10, 2002. On that occasion, plaintiff was arrested at North Beach Playground for violation of California Penal Code 653g. Plaintiff filed a second action in federal court, C 02-05422 WHA, concerning the November 10 arrest and the detention that followed.
In both cases, the City now moves for summary judgment.
ANALYSIS
1. Section 1983 Claims
For the following reasons, summary judgment is entered against plaintiff as to his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
First and foremost, the record does not support the conclusion that any of plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated. Evidence submitted by the City shows that plaintiff's arrest and prosecution were on both relevant occasions supported by probable cause. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the amount of bail set was excessive. See Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 5 (1951) (stating that for Eighth Amendment purposes, bail is excessive only when set beyond an amount reasonably calculated to ensure a defendant's presence at trial). Plaintiff's allegations regarding his confinement in jail and his reaction to the food served there similarly do not evidence a constitutional violation. Similarly, there is no basis on which a reasonable finder of fact could conclude on this record that named defendant Officer Bratts violated plaintiff's constitutional rights in the course of the November 10 arrest.
Second, to prevail on a Section 1983 claim against the City, plaintiff must prove that any injury he suffered resulted from policy or custom. Monnell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). The record contains no such evidence.
Lastly, this order notes that the District Attorney's Office cannot be held liable for damages for its actions in prosecuting violations of state law. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 n. 10 (1989); Pitts v. County of Kern, 949 P.2d 920, 934 (Cal. 1998).
2. State-Law Claims
Summary judgment is also entered against plaintiff with respect to his state-law claims. Plaintiff asserts claims for defamation, negligence, and malpractice based on the prosecution that followed his arrest on May 4, 2002. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief for these claims under California law. The City is immune from suit under California law for claims for damages arising from his criminal prosecution. Cal. Gov't Code 815.2(b), 821.6; see also Randle v. City County of S.F., 230 Cal.Rptr. 901, 905 (Cal.Ct.App. 1986); Kayfetz v. California, 203 Cal.Rptr. 33, 36 (Cal.Ct.App. 1984). Moreover, plaintiff did not, as required by California Government Code 945.4, submit a written claim before filing suit.
* * *
To the extent this order does not address any remaining claims or arguments asserted by plaintiff, they are without merit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, summary judgment is entered against plaintiff in both of the above-captioned cases. The Clerk shall close the files.