Paredes v. City of San Jose

Background

Anthony Luis Paredes sued San José police officers Michael Jeffrey, Kyle Alleman, Bret Hatzenbuhler, and Nail, as well as the City of San José, based on his arrest on February 7, 2020. Paredes alleged that the officers used deadly and/or excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable seizures. His claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims against people acting under state authority who violate federal rights.

Paredes also asserted claims against the city under the municipal-liability framework from Monell v. Department of Social Services. He alleged that the city failed to discipline Jeffrey for similar prior canine deployments and ratified the officers’ conduct. His Third Amended Complaint contained six causes of action. He conceded that three should be dismissed: failure to intervene, a municipal-liability claim based on force review, and a municipal-liability claim based on threat assessment.

Evidence and legal analysis

During the arrest, Jeffrey deployed his police dog, Tex, after officers found Paredes hiding inside a garbage can. Tex bit Paredes’s throat and did not release for approximately 60 seconds. Video evidence showed Jeffrey pulling on Tex’s collar while Paredes was lifted by his throat, Alleman holding a gun and standing on Paredes’s hand, and Hatzenbuhler restraining Paredes and at times standing on his head. The videos generally did not show Paredes resisting the officers or the dog. Paredes yelled “Alright!” several times before the bite, and those statements were audible on the officers’ body-camera videos.

The court held that factual disputes prevented summary judgment on the officers’ Fourth Amendment claims. A jury could find that Paredes did not pose an immediate threat, that he was attempting to surrender, and that the officers’ use of Tex was unreasonable. A jury could also find that the duration and circumstances of the throat bite amounted to excessive force or deadly force. The court found that Alleman and Hatzenbuhler could be liable as “integral participants”—officers whose conduct helped cause or facilitate another officer’s constitutional violation—because they helped expose Paredes to the dog and restrained him while the bite continued.

The court also rejected qualified immunity for the officers at the summary-judgment stage. Qualified immunity can protect government officials unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court concluded that existing Ninth Circuit precedent gave Jeffrey notice that deploying a canine against a surrendering or minimally threatening suspect, and allowing a bite to continue after surrender, could violate the Fourth Amendment. The court likewise concluded that precedent could put Alleman and Hatzenbuhler on notice that restraining a nonresisting suspect during excessive force could make them integral participants.

As to the city, the court found that the evidence could support both remaining municipal-liability theories. Six additional body-camera videos showed similar canine deployments by Jeffrey and Tex within about one year, including bites lasting 30 to 89 seconds and repeated failures to release on command. The court held that a jury could find that the city knew of this conduct and deliberately failed to discipline Jeffrey, and that this failure contributed to the alleged constitutional violation. Because a jury could also find that the officers violated Paredes’s rights, the court denied summary judgment on the ratification theory.

Disposition

The court granted summary judgment to Hatzenbuhler, Alleman, and Nail on Paredes’s failure-to-intervene claim and granted summary judgment to the city on the two customs-or-practice municipal-liability claims. The court stated that those claims were dismissed with prejudice.

The court denied summary judgment on Paredes’s excessive-use-of-force claims against Jeffrey, Alleman, and Hatzenbuhler. It also denied summary judgment on Paredes’s municipal-liability claims against the city based on ratification and failure to discipline. The court additionally stated that it granted the motions to the extent Paredes did not oppose them.