Worthy v. City of Berkeley

Background

Richard Edward Worthy sued the City of Berkeley and Berkeley Police Officers Hernan A. Villarroel, Nicholas A. Turney, and Kandi Walther over his detention on July 11, 2019, for a mental-health evaluation under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150. The complaint asserted seven claims: two claims under the federal civil-rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a Fourth Amendment detention without probable cause and First Amendment retaliation; assault and battery; false arrest and false imprisonment; race-motivated violence under California Civil Code § 51.7; interference with constitutional rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion under California Civil Code § 52.1; and negligence.

Officer Villarroel said he saw Worthy screaming near passersby while swinging what turned out to be a flute, and that nearby people appeared alarmed. Worthy disputed that account, testifying that he was taking his usual walk, playing his flute, and that no pedestrians were nearby. Body-camera footage showed the officers approaching Worthy from behind while apparently pointing a taser at him. Worthy was handcuffed, remained seated and compliant, and was later taken to a hospital. The hospital found no acute danger to himself or others and no basis for involuntary commitment.

Summary-judgment standard and continuance request

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. The court declined Worthy’s request for additional time to complete discovery because he did not make the required showings under Rule 56(d).

Probable cause for the section 5150 detention

The court held that the summary-judgment record did not establish probable cause as a matter of law for Worthy’s detention under section 5150. That statute permits an officer to detain a person the officer determines, based on probable cause, is mentally disordered and dangerous to himself or others, or gravely disabled. The court explained that probable cause requires specific, articulable facts that would create a strong suspicion of mental disorder and danger, based on the circumstances known to the officer at the time.

The court found two materially different accounts of Worthy’s conduct before the body-camera recording began. Villarroel described threatening behavior near passersby, while Worthy described peaceful flute-playing with no pedestrians nearby. Viewing the evidence in Worthy’s favor, the court found that his later statements and conduct did not establish that he posed a danger. The court noted that Worthy was coherent and lucid, did not physically resist or threaten the officers, did not try to leave after being handcuffed, and did not express an intent to harm himself or others. The court therefore denied summary judgment on Count 1, the Fourth Amendment claim against the defendants, Count 2, the First Amendment retaliation claim, Count 4, the false-arrest claim, and Count 7, the negligence claim, to the extent stated in the order’s conclusion.

Qualified immunity for Officer Villarroel

Qualified immunity generally protects an officer from personal liability unless the officer violated a clearly established legal rule and acted unreasonably under that rule. The court found that the relevant legal rule was clearly established, then concluded that Officer Villarroel was not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment. Viewing the evidence in Worthy’s favor, the court held that all reasonably competent officers in Villarroel’s position could not reasonably have concluded that Worthy posed a danger to himself or others. The court denied summary judgment to Villarroel on Count 1 because he was not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Qualified immunity for Officers Turney and Walther

The court reached a different conclusion for Officers Turney and Walther. They arrived after the conduct Villarroel described and relied on Villarroel’s account of Worthy’s behavior before their arrival. The court held that it was objectively reasonable for Turney and Walther to rely on Villarroel’s description because they had no obvious reason to question his observations, even though the issue was a close one. The court therefore held that Turney and Walther were entitled to qualified immunity on Count 1, the Fourth Amendment claim, and Count 2, the First Amendment retaliation claim.

State-law false-arrest immunity

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that California Government Code section 856(a) gave them immunity from Worthy’s false-arrest and false-imprisonment claim. Because a material factual dispute remained about whether the detention was supported by probable cause under section 5150, the court could not conclude at this stage that the detention was made in accordance with that statute. The court also found section 855.6 inapplicable. It denied summary judgment on Count 4.

Claims barred by California’s claims-presentation requirement

California’s Government Claims Act generally requires a person seeking money damages from a public entity to first present a written claim. The court held that Worthy’s pre-lawsuit claim did not fairly describe the alleged use of unreasonable force, intimidation, violence, threats of violence, or racial motivation underlying Counts 3 and 5. The court therefore granted summary judgment to all defendants on Count 3, the assault-and-battery claim, and Count 5, the claim under California Civil Code § 51.7.

California Civil Code section 52.1 claim

The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on Count 6. A claim under California Civil Code § 52.1 requires coercion independent of the coercion inherent in an allegedly wrongful detention. The court found that Worthy identified no evidence of coercion beyond the detention itself and did not address the cases holding that the detention alone was insufficient.

Unpleaded claims

The court rejected Worthy’s arguments concerning substantive due process and supervisory liability under Monell because the complaint did not plead either claim or theory.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It granted summary judgment to all defendants on Counts 3, 5, and 6 and to Officers Turney and Walther on Counts 1 and 2. It denied summary judgment to all defendants on Counts 4 and 7 and to Officer Villarroel on Counts 1 and 2. The order disposed of Docket No. 38.