Best v. Virgil Smith

Background

Brian Best brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, alleging that Virgil Smith violated the Fourth Amendment through excessive force. The dispute involved Best’s arrest on April 24, 2017, and his custody until April 25, 2017. Smith moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule without a trial when no genuine dispute of important facts requires a jury’s decision.

Statute of Limitations

Smith argued that Best’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The court explained that § 1983 claims generally use a two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims and that California law can pause that period for up to two years while a person is imprisoned on a criminal charge. Because Best remained in custody until April 25, 2017, the court concluded that the limitations period did not begin until then and expired on April 25, 2019, the same day Best filed the action. The court denied summary judgment on this ground.

Disputed Facts About the Force

Smith argued that his actions were objectively reasonable. Best alleged that Smith placed him in a rear naked choke, or carotid hold, and drove him to the ground, causing him to lose consciousness briefly. Smith disputed that account, asserting that he stopped attempting the carotid hold when Best moved his head and instead used a control hold involving pressure on Best’s shoulder. Smith also disputed that Best lost consciousness.

The parties further disagreed about whether Best posed a threat and whether he resisted arrest. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Best, the court found genuine disputes about the force used, Best’s conduct, and the threat he posed to the officers. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the argument that the force was objectively reasonable.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity can protect an officer from liability unless the evidence, viewed favorably to the injured person, shows a constitutional violation or the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time. The court concluded that, under Best’s version of the facts, a jury could find that Smith used excessive force by applying a carotid hold that rendered Best unconscious while Best was not resisting and posed no threat.

The court also held that precedent clearly established that using a chokehold on a non-resisting arrestee could violate the law. Relying on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Barnard, the court found that Smith was not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity and denied the motion on that ground.

Order

The court denied Smith’s motion for summary judgment and denied his request for judicial notice as moot. It ordered the parties to appear for a pretrial scheduling conference on Monday, August 30, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. The order stated that it terminated Docket Number 96.