Kyle Zoellner v. Eric Losey

Background

Kyle Christopher Zoellner sued the City of Arcata and several Arcata Police Department employees under federal and state law. Police arrested Zoellner on April 15, 2017, after Josiah Lawson was stabbed and died. Zoellner was charged with murder on April 19, 2017. After a preliminary hearing, the state court dismissed the charges on May 5, 2017, for lack of probable cause.

Zoellner’s remaining claims covered unlawful arrest and imprisonment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, malicious prosecution under § 1983, deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and defamation. The claim for wrongful threat of criminal prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress had been separated from the others and stayed; the motion addressed only the first four claims.

The evidence included testimony and police reports concerning the arrest, witness interviews, physical evidence, and Zoellner’s injuries. Detective Eric Losey’s report stated that Jason Martinez had identified Zoellner as the person who stabbed Lawson. Losey later acknowledged that his report mistakenly said Martinez identified Zoellner by name, explaining that Martinez had instead indicated the person with a hand gesture. The court treated the evidence as potentially supporting a finding that Losey deliberately included false information, rather than merely making an innocent mistake.

Summary-judgment standard

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 viewed the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Zoellner as the nonmoving party.

Unlawful arrest and imprisonment

The court held that all defendants were entitled to summary judgment on this claim. The court acknowledged that a reasonable jury could find that probable cause to arrest or continue detaining Zoellner dissipated after officers learned about evidence suggesting the stabbing occurred in a different location from the fight. But the court concluded that the officers were protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right that a reasonable official would have understood.

The court reached this conclusion for Officer Nilsen even though it found that a jury could potentially question whether probable cause continued to exist. The court determined that reasonable officers could disagree about whether probable cause was lacking, given that people pointed to Zoellner as the assailant, his clothing was bloody, and a witness had a factual basis for assuming he was responsible. The court extended the same protection to Officers McKenzie and Arminio, Detective Sergeant Todd Dokweiler, Detective Eric Losey, and Chief Thomas Chapman. The court also rejected Zoellner’s theory that Dokweiler and Losey conspired to fabricate evidence because the record did not support that finding.

Malicious prosecution

The court granted summary judgment to every defendant except Detective Eric Losey. A malicious-prosecution claim under § 1983 incorporates California law and requires proof that the prosecution was initiated by or directed by the defendant, ended in the plaintiff’s favor, lacked probable cause, and was brought with malice.

The court found a genuine dispute about malice and causation as to Losey. Losey’s report stated that Martinez identified Zoellner as the assailant, even though Losey later admitted that Martinez had not identified Zoellner by name. Because no other witness claimed to have seen Zoellner stab Lawson or hold a knife, a reasonable jury could infer that the false information was significant and deliberately included. The court also concluded that the record did not establish as a matter of law that Losey’s disclosure of the error before the preliminary hearing eliminated all possible causation or damages.

The court held that Losey would not receive qualified immunity if a jury found that he deliberately fabricated evidence. It therefore denied summary judgment on Zoellner’s malicious-prosecution claim against Losey and granted summary judgment on that claim as to all other defendants, including Chief Brian Ahearn.

Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need

The court granted summary judgment on the medical-care claim. As to Detective Sergeant Dokweiler, the record showed that he did not interact with Zoellner until after Zoellner had been medically cleared, and the court found no evidence supporting liability against him.

As to Officer Nilsen, the court concluded that factual disputes existed about whether Zoellner had an apparent serious medical need and whether Nilsen took reasonable steps to address it. Zoellner had a swollen eye, blood from his eye, nose, and mouth, and appeared dazed or was being supported by others. Nilsen asked whether Zoellner wanted an ambulance, but Zoellner declined. The court nevertheless held that Nilsen was protected by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in 2017 that the conduct alleged under these circumstances violated the Constitution.

Defamation

The court granted summary judgment on the defamation claim against the City, Chief Chapman, and Detective Sergeant Dokweiler. The court rejected Zoellner’s attempt to add new statements as additional bases for the claim because he raised them too late and defendants had not had an opportunity to seek summary judgment on them.

The court held that Dokweiler’s statement in the probable-cause statement submitted to a state court judge was privileged under California law because it was made in connection with a judicial or official proceeding. As to Chapman’s statement to the press that a white male had stabbed and killed a Black male, the court assumed for purposes of the motion that the statement could be false. Even so, it found no evidence of malice for presumed damages and no evidence that the statement caused Zoellner’s claimed actual damages, such as lost employment or reputational harm. The court therefore granted summary judgment to Chapman, Dokweiler, and the City.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It dismissed the unlawful-arrest and imprisonment claim, the deliberate-indifference claim, and the defamation claim in their entirety. It dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim except as to Detective Eric Losey. The only claim set to proceed to trial was the malicious-prosecution claim against Losey. The court stated that litigation of the bifurcated wrongful-threat-of-criminal-prosecution and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim would follow that trial.