Donohue III v. Antioch Police Department

Background

King David Levon Donahue III, representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under federal law against the City of Antioch, Supervising Officer Joshua Evans, Officer Joshua Riosbaas, and others after a January 6, 2023 traffic stop. Earlier summary-judgment rulings dismissed all claims except the claims tried in this order. The remaining parties agreed to a three-day bench trial, meaning the judge decided the facts and law without a jury.

The court addressed two issues: the permanent disappearance of Donahue’s iPhone and the use of overtight handcuffs. Officer Riosbaas handcuffed Donahue behind his back with one set of handcuffs. Donahue repeatedly complained that the cuffs were too tight, and later twice said they were cutting off circulation and making his hands numb. Riosbaas did not check or loosen the cuffs, instead continuing his paperwork and waiting for a jailer. After about 44 minutes, another officer replaced the original cuffs with a double set. Donahue later experienced continuing pain, visited a doctor, and received a brace for his left hand.

Officer Marques took Donahue’s iPhone while handcuffing him, stopped its recording, and placed it on the roof of a police vehicle. The phone was not recovered. The court found no trial evidence of a City policy, practice, or failure to act that made the permanent loss of an arrestee’s phone a highly predictable result.

Conclusions of Law

The iPhone claim. Donahue claimed that the City violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by permanently depriving him of his iPhone. The court rejected the claim because he did not prove the required municipal policy, practice, or policy of inaction. The court concluded that the City of Antioch did not violate his constitutional rights regarding the iPhone.

Officer Riosbaas and excessive force. The court held that an officer who receives a plausible complaint that handcuffs are too tight and are cutting off circulation must promptly check the cuffs and adjust them, unless a more urgent need prevents that action. The court found that Donahue’s cuffs were overtight, that he suffered impaired circulation and pain, and that Riosbaas ignored repeated complaints. The court found no government interest sufficient to justify the delay; paperwork was not enough, and the other circumstances did not create an urgent need to postpone checking the cuffs.

The court also held that the constitutional rule was clearly established before the January 2023 incident. It rejected Riosbaas’s argument that the law allowed a 20-minute grace period before checking handcuffs after a pain complaint. Officer Riosbaas was not entitled to qualified immunity, a legal protection that can shield government officials from damages when the law was not clearly established.

Supervising Officer Evans. The court found that Evans did not violate Donahue’s constitutional rights. Evans arrived relatively early in the detention, was not told about Donahue’s earlier complaints, heard only one complaint from Donahue, and did not hear Donahue expressly report pain or circulation problems. The court concluded that these circumstances did not put a reasonable officer on notice that the handcuffs were causing unconstitutional force.

Damages and disposition

The court found one constitutional violation: Riosbaas violated Donahue’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force by ignoring his repeated complaints of impaired circulation. The court found no economic damages, but awarded $19,700 for pain and suffering based on 19.7 minutes between Donahue’s first circulation complaint and removal of the original handcuffs. The court awarded no punitive damages because, although Riosbaas acted below the standard expected of a reasonable officer, he was a new officer and remained professional and courteous.

The conclusion states that the City of Antioch did not violate Donahue’s constitutional rights concerning the iPhone, Evans did not violate a constitutional right concerning the handcuffing, and Riosbaas violated a clearly established constitutional right. Judgment was ordered accordingly.