C.M.O. v. County of San Mateo

Background

The case arose from an October 3, 2017 encounter involving Chinedu Okobi and deputies Joshua Wang, Alyssa Lorenzatti, John DeMartini, Bryan Watt, and Sergeant Weidner. Deputy Wang saw Okobi cross Millwood Drive and attempted to stop him. After Okobi continued walking, Wang followed him and requested assistance. Other deputies arrived and attempted to take hold of Okobi. Wang warned Okobi that he would be tased, then tased him repeatedly. The opinion states that Wang tased Okobi seven times, struck him with a baton, and later pepper-sprayed him while deputies restrained him. The deputies remained on Okobi for a period of time, and Sergeant Weidner directed them to stay on him while also warning about positional asphyxiation. Medics arrived at approximately 1:13 p.m., and Okobi died on the way to the hospital. The autopsy identified cardiac arrest following physical exertion, physical restraint, and recent electro-muscular disruption as his cause of death.

C.M.O., a minor, filed the action on behalf of her father. The amended complaint asserted seven causes of action: unreasonable search and seizure involving detention and arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; excessive force and denial of medical care under § 1983; interference with familial relationship and freedom of association under § 1983; municipal liability against the County for an unconstitutional policy or custom; false imprisonment under California Government Code § 815.2(a); battery under California Government Code § 820; and negligence under California Government Code § 820.

Summary-Judgment Ruling

Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must not decide witness credibility or weigh conflicting evidence at this stage.

Claims Against the Individual Defendants

The court denied summary judgment on the first and second causes of action. It found factual disputes about whether the deputies’ actions were reasonable, including whether the deputies used excessive force after stopping Okobi for jaywalking, whether Okobi posed an immediate threat, whether he resisted or tried to escape, when he was injured, and whether the deputies promptly requested medical help. The court also stated that probable cause to believe Okobi was jaywalking did not automatically justify the force used.

The court also denied summary judgment on the third cause of action, which alleged interference with familial relationship and freedom of association. The applicable standard asks whether the officers’ conduct “shocks the conscience.” The opinion identified factual disputes about whether the deputies had time to deliberate, whether Wang’s repeated tasing of Okobi—including while Okobi was on the ground with his hands raised—showed deliberate indifference or a purpose to harm, whether the pepper spray and restraint reflected such conduct, and whether Sergeant Weidner’s commands supported the claim.

The defendants also sought qualified immunity, which can protect government officials from damages unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court held that deciding qualified immunity required resolving the same disputed facts. It therefore denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Municipal-Liability Claim

The fourth cause of action alleged that the County was liable under § 1983 because an unconstitutional policy, custom, or failure to train caused the alleged violations. The court granted summary judgment on this claim. It concluded that the plaintiff had not provided enough evidence of a County policy or custom amounting to deliberate indifference, or of a pattern of similar incidents. The court also noted that the evidence showed defendants had been trained about the risks of applying pressure to a prone person and positional asphyxiation, and that evidence of failing to train a single officer was insufficient to establish a municipal policy.

State-Law Claims and Final Disposition

The court denied summary judgment on the fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action—false imprisonment, battery, and negligence—because their resolution also depended on disputed facts about whether the Individual Defendants acted reasonably.

In its conclusion, the court denied summary judgment on the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action; granted summary judgment on the fourth cause of action; and denied summary judgment on the punitive claims.