Turner v. Williams
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-06521
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Turner v. Williams, Judge Davila dismissed the training claim against San Mateo but allowed other civil-rights claims to proceed.
Tajiri Turner Jr.’s failure-to-train claim against the City of San Mateo was dismissed, and the City was terminated as a party. The excessive-force claims against Officers Williams and Bickel, the failure-to-intervene claim involving Officer Norris, and the failure-to-train claim against the San Mateo Police Department proceeded; Chief Barberini was treated as a defendant.
What happened
In Tajiri Turner Jr. v. M.W. Williams, et al., Tajiri Turner Jr. alleged that officers used excessive force during his 2014 arrest. He said Officer Williams used a taser twice while he was handcuffed and lying face down, Officer Bickel pressed a knee against his face, and supervising Officer Norris failed to intervene.
The court screened the prisoner’s civil-rights complaint. It found that the allegations stated an excessive-force claim under the Fourth Amendment against Williams and Bickel. It also allowed the failure-to-intervene claim against Norris and the failure-to-train claim against the San Mateo Police Department to proceed, and treated Chief Barberini as a defendant.
The court dismissed the failure-to-train claim against the City of San Mateo for failure to state a claim and terminated the City as a party. Judge Edward J. Davila ordered service on the remaining defendants and directed them to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion.
The detailed version
- Turner v. Williams · No. 5:20-cv-06521
- Edward Davila
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
Tajiri Turner Jr., identified as a California inmate, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers of the San Mateo Police Department, the department itself, and the City of San Mateo. He sought damages and had paid the filing fee.
Turner alleged that, during an arrest on September 3, 2014, Officer M. W. Williams tased him twice in the back while he was lying face down in handcuffs and was not resisting. Turner also alleged that Officer Bickel used excessive force by pressing a knee against the left side of his face and constricting his carotid artery while he lay motionless in handcuffs. Turner alleged that Officer D. Norris, the supervising officer at the scene, failed to intervene.
Turner further alleged that the City of San Mateo and the San Mateo Police Department failed to adequately train officers and implement policies to prevent unnecessary force against people of color. He alleged that the City had delegated responsibility for setting training policies to Chief Barberini and that training problems contributed to the officers’ conduct.
Court’s analysis
Because Turner was a prisoner suing governmental entities or employees, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At that stage, the court had to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought damages from an immune defendant. The court also said it would interpret a self-represented litigant’s pleadings liberally.
The court held that the allegations were sufficient to state a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against Williams and Bickel. The court treated Turner’s allegations about Norris as a failure-to-intervene claim. Regarding municipal liability under § 1983, the court explained that a local government may be liable when an official policy or custom causes a constitutional violation, including in limited circumstances when a failure to train reflects deliberate indifference to constitutional rights.
The court concluded that Turner’s allegations did not show that the City of San Mateo made a deliberate or conscious choice about training because, according to the complaint, responsibility for setting the training policies had been delegated to Chief Barberini. The court therefore allowed the failure-to-train claim to proceed against the San Mateo Police Department rather than the City. It also liberally construed the complaint as naming Chief Barberini as a defendant.
Disposition and next steps
The court dismissed the failure-to-train claim against the City of San Mateo for failure to state a claim for relief and terminated the City as a party. The court ordered service of the complaint and the order on Chief Barberini, Officer D. Norris, Officer M. W. Williams, and Officer Bickel.
The court directed the defendants to file, within 91 days after the order was filed, a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the claims found cognizable. It set deadlines for Turner’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, stated that no hearing would be held unless later ordered, and allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after the required Rule 16-1 conference.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.