Humes v. Cali Hiway Patrol

Background

Humes, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Highway Patrol and the Monterey County Sheriff's Department. The court previously dismissed a claim seeking release from jail and allowed the case to proceed on a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against William C. Hija. Humes did not file a separate opposition to Hija's renewed motion for summary judgment, but the court treated his verified amended complaint as evidence opposing the motion.

The events occurred on March 5, 2021. According to the evidence submitted by the defense, CHP Officer Dylan Watson pursued Humes after observing dangerous driving, including speeds of up to 94 miles per hour in a marked 65-mile-per-hour zone. The pursuit continued on highways and surface streets, and Humes allegedly drove recklessly, collided with patrol vehicles, and tried to evade officers. After Humes left his vehicle, Watson tackled him. The officers had difficulty controlling Humes's hands, and Hija stated that he held Humes's head and part of his shoulder until the officers handcuffed him.

Humes alleged that Hija applied a carotid chokehold after he was tackled, causing him to lose consciousness and lose control of his bowels. Humes also asserted that he did not resist and complied with the officers' orders. Hija denied using a chokehold. A paramedic's report stated that Humes appeared altered, was not following commands or answering questions, and was suspected of drug use.

Legal standard and analysis

The court applied the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard for force used during an arrest. Under the three-part framework from Graham v. Connor, the court considered the type and amount of force, the government's interest in using force, and the balance between the intrusion and the government's need.

For the first part, the court acknowledged a dispute about whether Humes was resisting, but found that it was not a genuine dispute because a reasonable jury could not find for Humes based on the record as a whole. The court credited evidence that Watson—not Hija—tackled Humes; that several officers had difficulty controlling Humes's hands; that Humes repeatedly failed to follow orders and tried to escape; that Hija denied using a chokehold; and that the paramedic report described Humes as altered and noncompliant. The court concluded that holding Humes's head and shoulder until he was handcuffed was not excessive under those circumstances.

For the second part, the court found that the government's interests were strong because Humes had led officers on a high-speed chase, attempted to flee, posed an immediate threat to officers and others, and was involved in conduct that included evading officers and assaulting officers with his vehicle. Balancing the intrusion against those interests, the court concluded that Hija's actions were reasonable. The court stated that Humes's assertion that he was not resisting was conclusory and insufficient to prevent summary judgment.

Because the court found no constitutional violation, it did not reach Hija's qualified-immunity argument.

Other motion and disposition

The court granted the administrative motion to file under seal exhibits containing Humes's confidential medical information and medical records, stating that such records are confidential under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

The court granted Hija's motion for summary judgment. It dismissed the excessive-force claim against Hija with prejudice. The order also granted the motion to file under seal and terminated Docket Nos. 78 and 79.