Purnell v. City of Sunnyvale Police Department

Background

Georgette G. Purnell brought civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officers Puaolena Reis and Clyde Cheng arising from her December 30, 2016 arrest. Section 1983 provides a claim against a person who, while acting under state authority, violates a constitutional right. Purnell alleged that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Before this motion, the court had dismissed Purnell’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and her claims alleging deprivation of basic human needs and serious medical care. The remaining claims addressed alleged excessive force during the arrest and an alleged attack at the Santa Clara County Jail.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment requires judgment for the moving party when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, but that party must provide admissible evidence supporting the claims.

Excessive-force allegations during the arrest

Purnell testified that a male officer pulled her hair and hoodie while placing her in the back of a patrol car. The body-camera footage from the initial encounter and arrest showed no hair-pulling or other excessive force by the defendants or any officer visible at the scene. Purnell did not include these allegations in her declarations, did not provide other supporting evidence, and did not address them in her opposition. The court therefore found no genuine dispute of material fact on this issue.

Purnell also argued that Officer Reis ignored requests for medical assistance while transporting her to jail. The court stated that it had already dismissed Purnell’s claims for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need with prejudice, so it did not reconsider those arguments as part of the summary-judgment motion.

Alleged attack at the jail

Purnell’s opposition primarily focused on her claim that Reis, Cheng, and other officers tackled her at the jail. Her declarations stated that Cheng and Reis, assisted by jail deputies, threw her against a wall and floor. But during her deposition, Purnell had repeatedly said that she could not identify exactly who did what during the alleged attack. The court found that the declarations directly contradicted her earlier sworn testimony and did not, without additional evidence, create a genuine issue for trial.

The defendants submitted declarations denying that they attacked Purnell. Cheng stated that he was not present at the jail during her booking. Reis stated that she moved away while correctional officers took Purnell to the ground. The court explained that § 1983 requires evidence of each defendant’s personal participation; a defendant cannot be held liable merely because other officers participated in an incident or because of a general “team effort.”

Purnell argued that jail video would confirm her account, but the video was not before the court. The defendants had explained that they did not possess the footage because the City of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara County were separate legal entities. Magistrate Judge Cousins had told Purnell that she could seek the records from the County through a subpoena, but she did not issue one. The court therefore could not deny summary judgment based on Purnell’s description of evidence she had not seen and that was not in the record.

Disposition

The court found that the defendants showed there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that Purnell had not provided sufficient evidence of the elements of her claims against Reis and Cheng. It granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in full and dismissed Purnell’s excessive-force claims with prejudice. The court did not reach qualified immunity. It vacated the pretrial deadlines and hearing dates and directed the Clerk to close the file. Judge Edward J. Davila entered the order on July 8, 2020.