Ortiz v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Juan Ortiz sued Officers Kevin Conway, Sam Park, Michael Vigil, Bernard Artificio, and Brenda Sosa, together with the City and County of San Francisco. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, municipal liability based on an allegedly unconstitutional custom or policy, and deliberate indifference to his medical needs. He also asserted California claims under the Bane Act, and for negligence and battery.

The case concerned events after San Francisco police officers stopped Ortiz based on reports that he had threatened two people with a gun. At the jail, Ortiz alleged that Conway punched him and slammed his head into a wall during a dress-in search after Ortiz said he was cold, had not taken his medication, and tossed his shirt near Conway’s feet. Ortiz also alleged that officers later threw him onto a concrete slab in a safety cell, beat his ribs, and failed to provide his blood-pressure medication. The defendants described Ortiz as agitated and threatening and said Conway used a rear-wrist lock to control him. The parties agreed that additional officers handcuffed and shackled Ortiz. Ortiz was released on bail the next day and went to a hospital the following day, where he was diagnosed with injuries including contusions and a brain bleed.

Summary-judgment rulings

Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion and may not weigh competing evidence or decide witness credibility.

The court granted the defendants’ motion on Ortiz’s deliberate-indifference claim. It concluded that officers promptly summoned medical care, that the record did not show objectively unreasonable conduct, and that Ortiz had not shown that any delay in hospital treatment caused an injury. The court therefore did not reach the defendants’ qualified-immunity arguments on that claim.

The court granted the defendants’ unopposed motion on Ortiz’s municipal-liability claim. The opinion refers to this claim as a claim that the municipality maintained an unconstitutional custom or policy.

For the excessive-force claim, the court concluded that Ortiz’s version of the dress-in incident could support a finding that Conway used excessive force and violated the Fourth Amendment. But the court held that the right was not clearly established under the qualified-immunity standard and granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to the dress-in portion of that claim.

The court granted summary judgment for Sosa on Ortiz’s excessive-force claim and on the battery, Bane Act, and negligence claims because Ortiz alleged only that she was a female deputy who laughed at the door and did not provide facts showing that she participated in the alleged conduct. The court also granted summary judgment for Artificio on the excessive-force claim and related state-law claims because Ortiz identified no facts connecting Artificio to conduct beyond the dress-in incident, which the court had already resolved through qualified immunity.

On the Bane Act claim, the court granted summary judgment for Park and Vigil because Ortiz did not provide specific facts showing that they intended to violate his rights. The court had previously granted summary judgment on that claim as to Sosa and Artificio. The court denied summary judgment in part and granted it in part on the Bane Act claim because it found that a jury could reasonably find that Conway specifically intended to use unreasonable force during the safety-cell incident. The opinion states that no genuine dispute remained as to Artificio, Park, and Vigil, while a dispute remained as to Conway.

Sealing rulings

The court applied the “compelling reasons” standard to the sealing requests because the documents were attached to a dispositive motion. It denied the defendants’ request to seal Exhibit E, a jail sign-in log, and Exhibit Q, training records, because the defendants had not adequately shown specific reasons outweighing the public’s interest in access. The court granted the defendants’ request to seal Exhibits F, G, and H, which were jail-surveillance videos, because of security and privacy concerns, and granted the request to seal Exhibit I, Ortiz’s medical records.

The court granted Ortiz’s request to seal Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, which were the same surveillance videos. It denied his request to seal Exhibit 5, the same sign-in log as Exhibit E, and denied his requests to seal Exhibits 4 and 6 through 9 because the parties’ confidentiality designations did not establish that the materials were sealable and the defendants had not supplied the required supporting declaration. The opinion says Ortiz sought to seal Exhibits 1 through 10, but it does not state a disposition for Exhibit 10.

Other orders and disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part both sides’ administrative motions to file documents under seal. It directed the defendants to file public versions of Exhibits E and Q or a more narrowly tailored amended sealing motion, and directed Ortiz to file public versions of Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 or an amended motion. The court also stated that documents covered by granted sealing requests would remain under seal.

In Ortiz v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. vacated the August 17, 2020 trial date and set a telephonic case-management conference for June 9, 2020. The order does not state a final judgment resolving every claim or defendant.