Flanigan v. Harris, Hicklin and Tam

Background

Willie M. Flanigan, who was representing himself, filed letters that the court treated as motions for different forms of relief. The dispute arose after a high-speed vehicle chase through downtown San Francisco ended in a multi-car crash. San Francisco police forcibly removed Flanigan from his car. The court stated that the force used before custody stayed within constitutional limits, while the alleged force used after custody remained a live claim for a jury.

The remaining claim was brought under Section 1983, a federal civil-rights law that allows claims against state or local officials for violations of constitutional rights. The court stated that the claim would proceed against Officer Harris, Sergeant Tam, and Officer Hicklin.

Rulings on Flanigan’s Motions

Motion to amend. Flanigan sought to add employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation who staffed California City Correctional Facility, along with claims concerning unclean housing units and COVID-19, law-library conflicts, and the accuracy of his release date. He also sought to add a claim under the proposed George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. The court held that these matters did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the excessive-force claim and noted that the proposed act had not passed the Senate or been signed into law. The motion to amend to add new claims and defendants was DENIED.

Motion for reconsideration. Flanigan asked the court to reconsider its recent summary-judgment order. The court explained that reconsideration generally requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law, and that he had not first obtained the required permission under the local rules. Flanigan relied on a statement by Sergeant Tam and the absence of an incident report from Recruit Officer Bjorkquist to argue that Sergeants Ryan and Holder may have been present during the alleged force. The court found that these materials did not overcome contemporaneous computer-aided dispatch records showing that Ryan and Holder were not present. The motion for reconsideration was DENIED.

Request for counsel. Flanigan moved for reappointment of counsel. The court relied on its earlier finding that he had already received free legal counsel during discovery, that the Federal Pro Bono Project had declined to reassign counsel, and that further efforts to secure counsel were not warranted. The request for new counsel was DENIED.

Motion to reopen discovery. Flanigan sought to reopen discovery, which had closed on September 13, 2019. The court stated that changing a discovery deadline requires good cause and that the central question is whether the requesting party acted diligently. It found that Flanigan had not shown what relevant information he sought or why he could not have obtained it during the year in which he had represented counsel. The request was DENIED.

Request for judicial notice. Flanigan asked the court to take judicial notice, meaning to accept certain facts without requiring ordinary proof, of grievances involving the correctional facility and its staff and of a document-production log. The court had reviewed the materials but said it did not need to take judicial notice of them to decide the motions. The request was DENIED AS MOOT.

Overall disposition and next steps

The court summarized the ruling by stating that all motions were DENIED. It also stated that Flanigan’s Section 1983 claim against Harris, Tam, and Hicklin would proceed. The court set a telephonic hearing for November 4, 2021, to address scheduling the trial and directed defendants to contact the warden about Flanigan’s health, COVID-19 vaccination status, law-library access, telephone access, and trial-preparation accommodations. The order stated that all participants would be required to be vaccinated to proceed and required both sides to respond by November 2, 2021, at noon.