Kettmann v. City Of San Jose

Background

Andrew Kettmann alleged that San Jose Police Officers Jose Uribe and Marcnell Palacio used excessive force against him during a confrontation at Riviera Villa Therapeutic Living Center. The opinion states that the officers tased Kettmann twenty times and that Palacio struck his legs with a baton several times, fracturing his leg. Kettmann asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and California’s Bane Act.

Before this order, the City of San Jose had been dismissed from the case by stipulation. The remaining claims were the § 1983 excessive-force claim and the Bane Act claim against Officers Uribe and Palacio.

According to the evidence described by the court, an employee called 9-1-1 after Kettmann allegedly assaulted or threatened staff and residents. When Uribe and Palacio later attempted to arrest him, Kettmann broke away, reached for Palacio’s taser, struck Palacio in the face, pulled and ripped Uribe’s jacket, tried to climb a fence, and turned toward the officers in a fighting stance. Uribe then tased him. While Kettmann was on the ground, the officers said he continued kicking, trying to take Palacio’s baton, trying to remove the taser prongs, and attempting to stand. Uribe activated the taser twenty times, although the court noted that most applications had little or no effect after a wire dislodged. Palacio later used his baton until the officers turned Kettmann onto his stomach and handcuffed him.

Excessive Force

The court applied the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness test. That test balances the nature and amount of force against the government’s interests, considering the seriousness of the suspected crime, whether the person posed an immediate threat, and whether he was resisting arrest or trying to flee.

The court determined that the taser and baton strikes were significant uses of force, but held that all three factors favored the officers. It found that the officers were attempting to arrest Kettmann for assault; Kettmann did not identify a genuine factual dispute about whether he had committed that crime; and the evidence described conduct that supported the officers’ position that he posed a threat and was resisting or attempting to escape. The court also considered Kettmann’s mental illness but found that he did not explain how it affected the reasonableness analysis or identify evidence creating a genuine dispute. The court therefore held that the officers’ use of force was objectively reasonable and granted summary judgment on the federal excessive-force claim.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is a defense that can protect government officials from civil damages unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court rejected Kettmann’s reliance on a Ninth Circuit case involving officers who continuously tased a handcuffed and physically subdued person. It found this case different because Uribe and Palacio stopped using the taser and baton once backup officers subdued Kettmann, and because most of the taser applications had only a minor effect. The court held that Kettmann had not shown a violation of a clearly established right and granted summary judgment on the qualified-immunity defense.

Bane Act Claim

The Bane Act claim required Kettmann to show not only the underlying constitutional violation but also that the officers acted with specific intent to violate his rights. The court found that Kettmann had not identified particular portions of the record showing that intent. It held that merely directing the court to body-camera footage was insufficient and granted summary judgment on the Bane Act claim.

Disposition

The court concluded: “Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to all claims.”