Hernandez v. Contra Costa County

Background

Ricardo Hernandez alleged that two police officers used excessive force during a stolen-vehicle stop. According to the complaint, Hernandez was compliant, exited the car with his hands raised, and walked backward toward an officer. One officer allegedly placed him in a carotid hold until he lost consciousness, struck him six times in the head with a flashlight, and threatened to shoot him. Another officer allegedly struck him several times in the shoulder area with a flashlight.

Hernandez also alleged that two supervising officers were present, specifically saw the use of force, and did not intervene. He further alleged that Contra Costa County had known for about 10 years that sheriff’s deputies were assaulting unconscious civilians after using carotid holds.

The officers alleged to have used force answered the complaint. The supervising officers and the County moved to dismiss the claims against them.

Court’s analysis

Because the case was at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court treated Hernandez’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in his favor. The court concluded that the allegations plausibly supported an excessive-force claim against the officers who assaulted Hernandez and a claim against the supervising officers for failing to intervene.

The court explained that officers have a duty to intervene when they have a realistic opportunity to stop another officer from violating a person’s constitutional rights. The court found that the alleged duration of the carotid hold and the repeated strikes against an unconscious person supported an inference that the supervising officers could have intervened physically or by ordering the other officers to stop. The court distinguished a prior case involving a shooting that happened within seconds, where the other officers had no reason to anticipate the shooting.

The court also concluded that Hernandez adequately pleaded a claim against the County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court described his allegations as supporting a possible County policy of inaction: the County allegedly knew about repeated constitutional violations and failed to implement safeguards to prevent them. The court rejected the argument that Hernandez had to provide more specific details about when the similar incidents occurred and exactly what happened at the pleading stage. It found that the complaint gave the County fair notice of the claim.

Disposition

Judge Alex G. Tse denied the motion to dismiss. The opinion did not decide that the alleged events actually occurred; it decided only that the claims against the supervising officers and Contra Costa County were adequately pleaded to proceed beyond this motion.