Shiromi v. City of Berkeley

Background

Ganna Wettasinghe Shiromi filed a civil-rights action against the City of Berkeley. Her complaint alleged that two Berkeley police officers used excessive force while taking her into protective custody under California Welfare and Institutions Code § 5150. That statute authorizes up to 72 hours of mental-health assessment when probable cause exists to believe that a person, because of a mental disorder, is a danger to others or to herself or himself.

The complaint asserted claims under the Fourth Amendment, California’s Bane Act, and California tort law theories of battery and negligence. The City moved for summary judgment on each claim. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the evidence shows that no genuine factual dispute requires a trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Evidence and arguments

The City relied on declarations from Officers Radey and Hunt. Their account was that the incident began after two 911 calls about a woman behaving erratically with a young boy. After confirming that Shiromi matched the callers’ description and attempting to speak with her, the officers called a mental-health clinician. The clinician concluded that Shiromi posed a danger to herself and others and should be taken into custody for further evaluation.

The officers stated that, as they lifted Shiromi’s son from her arms, Shiromi began to slump toward the ground. They said she flailed after reaching the ground and that Officer Radey placed her in handcuffs without using force beyond the minimal touching needed to apply them. The officers also stated that no officer pushed her to the ground.

Shiromi had previously been represented by counsel but was representing herself when she opposed the motion. The court said she presented no evidence disputing the officers’ account or showing that they used excessive force. Her opposition instead focused on whether the officers had a lawful basis to conclude that section 5150 authorized protective custody. She also made statements about medical treatment during the ambulance ride. The court described those as new claims and noted that the deadline to amend the complaint had passed while she was still represented by counsel.

Ruling

The court held that the claims all depended on proof that the officers used excessive force. Because Shiromi did not create a triable issue on that question, the court concluded that the City was entitled to judgment. Judge Vince Chhabria therefore granted the City’s motion for summary judgment. The order does not state that the motion was granted with or without prejudice.