Sweiha v. County of Alameda

Background

Alameda County deputies responded to a 911 call after Abraam Sweiha entered a residence, went into the bedroom of a bedridden priest, and made statements about a hostage situation. Sweiha had bipolar disorder, and people at the residence told the deputies that he was having a manic episode and had psychological problems. After deputies warned that they would deploy a police dog, they broke open the bedroom door and sent the dog in.

The parties agreed that the initial decision to deploy the dog was reasonable. They disagreed about what happened afterward. The deputies said the dog bit Sweiha’s arm while he was holding an object and that he struggled with the dog. Sweiha said the dog initially tugged his sleeve, he dropped the wooden cross, raised his hands, repeatedly apologized, and surrendered, but Deputy Edwards then positioned the dog to bite his arm. The body-camera footage did not show the dog or precisely how it seized Sweiha, but it showed Sweiha with his arms raised, apologizing, and then screaming as the dog bit him. The bite lasted until Edwards ordered the dog to release it, after Sweiha was handcuffed.

The operative complaint asserted an excessive-force claim under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a claim concerning County policies that had previously been dismissed, a Fourteenth Amendment claim about medical care in custody, and a Title II Americans with Disabilities Act claim based on the alleged failure to accommodate Sweiha during his arrest and confinement.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. At this stage, the court views reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion. A genuine dispute exists when the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to decide for that party.

Excessive force and qualified immunity

The court denied summary judgment to Deputy Edwards on the excessive-force claim because the disputed evidence could allow a factfinder to conclude that Edwards caused the dog to continue biting Sweiha after Sweiha complied with the deputies’ instructions and surrendered. Resolving that dispute would require evaluating evidence and witness credibility, which are generally tasks for a factfinder rather than the court on summary judgment.

The court also held that the dispute prevented qualified immunity for Edwards. Qualified immunity is legal protection for government officials from civil damages unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. The court said it had been clearly established for more than 20 years that an officer’s improper encouragement of a police-dog attack, or an excessively long bite, could constitute excessive force.

The court granted summary judgment on the excessive-force claim to the other defendants based on qualified immunity. The encounter lasted only seconds after Edwards deployed the dog, and the court found no facts suggesting that the other deputies played an integral role in Edwards’s alleged conduct or had an opportunity to intervene.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

The court granted summary judgment to the County on the ADA claim. For damages under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show intentional discrimination. The court explained that this requires deliberate indifference, meaning more than negligence or merely overlooking a duty to act.

The court granted summary judgment on the ADA claim to the extent it was based on deputies other than Edwards because those deputies had no part in the conduct that Sweiha alleged violated the ADA. It also granted summary judgment on the portion based on Edwards’s conduct because there was no evidence that Edwards acted because of Sweiha’s disability. The court held that the factual dispute about whether the force was excessive created a triable issue only on the excessive-force claim, not on the ADA claim.

Fourteenth Amendment claim and conclusion

Sweiha did not oppose summary judgment on his Fourteenth Amendment claim concerning medical care during confinement. The court therefore granted the unopposed motion on that claim.

The order grants summary judgment to the County on the ADA claim, grants summary judgment based on qualified immunity to all defendants except Edwards on the excessive-force claim, grants the unopposed motion on the Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim, and denies Edwards’s motion for summary judgment on the excessive-force claim.