Dominguez v. City Of San Jose

Background

After an alleged armed robbery, police obtained a warrant for Jacob Dominguez’s arrest. On September 15, 2017, officers used multiple vehicles to block Dominguez’s vehicle in San Jose. Officers ordered him to raise his hands. According to the officers, Dominguez later dropped his hands out of sight and leaned forward as if reaching for a weapon. Officer Michael Pina fired two shots, killing Dominguez. No firearm was found in Dominguez’s vehicle.

Jessica Dominguez, individually and as guardian ad litem for Jacob Dominguez and their three children, brought claims against Pina, the City of San Jose, and the San Jose Police Department. The claims were: excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; violation of California’s Bane Act; and violation of California’s Ralph Act, which prohibits violence or threats of violence motivated by race or another protected characteristic.

Disputed Facts About the Shooting

The court identified a central factual dispute: whether Dominguez reached down toward the seat or floor, as the officers testified, or whether his hands were raised when Pina fired. Plaintiffs presented forensic evidence and expert testimony that, in their view, suggested Dominguez’s hands were raised when the second shot was fired. The court also noted that no body-camera footage clearly showed Dominguez throughout the incident and that no weapon was found.

The court did not decide which account was more credible. It concluded that the circumstantial evidence could allow a reasonable jury to question the officers’ account. If a jury found that Dominguez’s hands were raised when he was shot, the shooting would be clearly unreasonable under the cited precedent.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Federal excessive-force claim against Officer Pina. Defendants argued that Pina reasonably responded to an imminent deadly threat and was protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from civil damages unless the evidence could show both a violation of a constitutional right and violation of a clearly established right.

The court denied summary judgment to Pina. It held that granting him qualified immunity would require accepting defendants’ version of disputed facts. Because a reasonable jury could find that Dominguez did not make a threatening movement and had his hands raised when Pina fired, the court found that Pina was not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Federal claim against the City and Police Department. Plaintiffs pursued municipal liability under the rule commonly called Monell. That rule can make a municipality liable for a constitutional violation caused by an official policy, custom, failure to train, or ratification by a final policymaker.

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim as to the City of San Jose and the San Jose Police Department. Plaintiffs identified no other similar incidents supporting a policy, custom, or practice. The court also found insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference based on failure to train and insufficient evidence that a policymaker ratified Pina’s conduct. The court specifically found that Pina’s later promotion and a District Attorney’s report did not establish ratification.

Bane Act claim. Defendants argued that plaintiffs lacked evidence that Pina specifically intended to use unreasonable force. The court rejected that argument for purposes of summary judgment. It explained that a reasonable jury could find recklessness from the circumstantial evidence, and that such evidence could satisfy the specific-intent requirement. The court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Bane Act claim.

Ralph Act claim. Defendants argued that there was no evidence Pina acted because of Dominguez’s race or another protected characteristic. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim as to all defendants. Plaintiffs offered no specific and substantial evidence of racial animus, and their subjective belief based on what they viewed as Pina’s outrageous and inconsistent actions was insufficient.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on all three claims. The disputed evidence concerning Dominguez’s movements prevented judgment for plaintiffs on the federal claim against Pina and the Bane Act claim. Because the court granted defendants’ motion on the federal claim against the City and Police Department and on the Ralph Act claim, plaintiffs also could not obtain summary judgment on those claims.

Disposition

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. It granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Specifically, defendants’ motion was granted on the § 1983 claim against the City and Police Department and on the Ralph Act claim against all defendants; it was denied in all other respects.