Sean Moore v. City and County of San Francisco
- Susan Illston
- 3:18-cv-00634
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In Moore v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Illston mostly denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion, granted it on Monell, and split plaintiffs’ motion.
The order affected the substituted plaintiffs Loyce Amos Moore and Cleo Moore, the City and County of San Francisco, Officers Cha and Patino, and the parties’ claims concerning the January 20, 2017 encounter. It granted defendants summary judgment on the Monell claim, left the other claims unresolved, granted plaintiffs one issue concerning the officers’ second ascent, denied their excessive-force issue, and required materials to be filed publicly.
What happened
In Loyce Amos Moore v. City and County of San Francisco, the court considered the parties’ competing requests for summary judgment after an encounter in which officers pepper-sprayed, struck, and shot Sean Moore. Sean Moore later died while incarcerated, and his parents were substituted as plaintiffs.
The defendants argued that the officers had probable cause and used reasonable force. The plaintiffs argued that the officers unlawfully continued the encounter, retaliated against Moore, and used excessive force. The court found factual disputes about what happened and how the officers’ actions should be interpreted, including disputes shown in body-camera video.
Judge Illston granted defendants’ motion on the plaintiffs’ Monell claim but otherwise denied it, leaving the other claims unresolved for trial. She granted plaintiffs’ motion on the officers’ second ascent of the stairs, denied it on whether the pepper spray was excessive as a matter of law, and denied the motions to seal.
The detailed version
- Sean Moore v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:18-cv-00634
- Susan Illston
- Dec. 10, 2020
Background
The case arose from a January 20, 2017 encounter between Sean Moore and San Francisco police officers Cha and Patino. Moore’s neighbor called the officers at approximately 4:00 a.m. and said Moore had been banging on their shared wall. The neighbor had a temporary restraining order against Moore. The officers did not witness Moore violating that order, and the neighbor did not ask them to make a citizen’s arrest.
The officers first approached Moore’s home and spoke with him through a closed metal gate. Moore denied violating the restraining order and told the officers to leave. The officers initially went back down the stairs, but after Moore again demanded that they leave, they went up the stairs a second time. Moore opened the gate and crossed the threshold slightly, after which the officers used pepper spray. The encounter continued, and the officers later ordered Moore to come outside and said he was under arrest. During a third ascent of the stairs, Officer Patino struck Moore with a baton. Moore punched Patino, and Officer Cha fired two shots that struck Moore.
Sean Moore died while incarcerated on January 20, 2020. His parents, Loyce Amos Moore and Cleo Moore, were substituted as plaintiffs in February 2020.
Claims and motions
The complaint asserted nine causes of action: Fourth Amendment unlawful search and seizure; Fourth Amendment excessive force; a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation; a Monell claim; a California Civil Code section 52.1 claim; negligence; an Americans with Disabilities Act claim; assault; and battery.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on all nine claims. Plaintiffs sought partial summary adjudication—an early ruling on specific issues—asking the court to decide that: (1) the officers were not lawfully performing their duties when they re-entered Moore’s stairway after first descending it; and (2) the officers used excessive force as a matter of law when they pepper-sprayed Moore.
Court’s analysis
The court held that material factual disputes prevented summary judgment on the claims involving the officers’ conduct. Those disputes included whether the officers had grounds to arrest Moore at each stage, whether Moore posed a threat, whether the officers provoked or taunted him, whether they knew or should have known that he was mentally disabled, whether Moore was advancing or retreating when Patino struck him, and whether the shooting was reasonable.
The court also declined to resolve qualified immunity at this stage. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from damages unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court concluded that deciding the defense required resolving factual disputes about whether the officers used excessive force.
The court relied on an earlier state appellate decision arising from the same incident and adopted its conclusion for the specific issue presented: the officers were not lawfully performing their duties when they made the second ascent of the stairs. The court also noted that this conclusion did not mean all later conduct was automatically unlawful.
Rulings
The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the fourth cause of action, the Monell claim. It denied defendants’ motion as to the other causes of action.
The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion. It granted the motion on the issue that the officers were not lawfully performing their duties when they ascended the stairs the second time. It denied the motion seeking a ruling that the pepper spray was excessive force as a matter of law because factual disputes remained.
The court denied the motions to seal. It ordered defendants to re-file publicly the exhibits submitted under seal, including relevant body-camera footage and other incident materials, with necessary redactions for third-party or sensitive information.
Effect of the order
The order resolved the Monell claim in defendants’ favor, but it did not resolve the other claims on summary judgment. The court’s rulings left factual issues for further proceedings, including whether the officers had probable cause and whether their use of force was reasonable.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.