Tamrat v. Rhodes

Background

Herman Tamrat, a former county detainee and current state prisoner, brought a civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He alleged that police officers Erick Rhodes and Albini unlawfully arrested and detained him and used excessive force during the arrest. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no important factual dispute requires a trial and that the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Tamrat filed an opposition.

The court described evidence from December 2, 2018. Rhodes, a uniformed patrol officer with the Santa Rosa Police Department, responded to a report that a suspect had charged mall security staff with a knife and had been pepper sprayed. Officers found Tamrat sitting on a planter. They repeatedly ordered him to get on his knees, but he did not comply. After Tamrat stood with his hands raised and said he could not breathe or see, Albini and another officer took him to the ground and handcuffed him. Officers searched for the reported knife, allowed Tamrat to sit up after about 90 seconds, and requested medical assistance.

A knife was recovered from Tamrat’s pocket. Video reviewed by Rhodes showed Tamrat taking out and unfolding a knife, saying words that included “I’ll,” and lunging at a security guard. The opinion states that Tamrat was later convicted under California Penal Code sections 245(a)(1), assault with a deadly weapon, and 664/422(a), attempted criminal threats. Medical personnel found mild distress from pepper-spray inhalation, no sign of trauma, and normal vital signs. Tamrat declined oxygen and was later taken to an emergency room before being discharged to jail.

Federal claims

The court held that defendants had shown no genuine dispute of material fact concerning the unlawful-arrest and detention claims. Multiple witnesses reported that Tamrat had brandished a knife and attempted to stab a security guard, and video evidence showed the attempted stabbing. The court therefore found probable cause and justification for the arrest and detention and granted summary judgment to defendants on those claims.

The court also held that defendants had shown no genuine dispute concerning excessive force. It found that officers responded to a report of a knife attack, gave Tamrat multiple opportunities to follow commands, used a low level of force to take him down in a controlled manner, handcuffed him, and allowed him to sit up and receive medical attention after approximately 90 seconds. The court found that Tamrat’s breathing difficulty resulted from pepper spray used by a security guard, not from the officers’ actions, and that he did not suffer injuries from the officers’ conduct.

Tamrat argued that the video footage had been manipulated and should be disregarded. The court rejected those unsupported arguments, stating that the video confirmed defendants’ account and that conclusory allegations without supporting factual information could not create a genuine factual dispute.

Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity is a protection from damages liability for government officials unless their conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established. The court stated that it had not found a constitutional violation. It further held that, even if there had been a violation, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer would not have clearly understood that arresting someone who had just attempted to stab another person, or using minimal force to subdue that person after noncompliance with orders, was unlawful.

State-law claims

The court explained that the California Government Claims Act generally requires a person to present a claim before maintaining certain damages actions against a California governmental entity or employee. Defendants presented evidence that Tamrat had not filed a claim with the city. The court noted that Tamrat had been given several opportunities to show compliance but offered no evidence or argument establishing that he had complied. It dismissed his state-law claims for failure to comply with the Act. The opinion does not specify the particular state-law claims.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The clerk was directed to close the case.