Peace v. Wu

Background

Michael Peace, who was incarcerated at the San Francisco County Jail and litigated without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking money damages. He named the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office, Deputy Harry Wu, and Captain Stephen Tilton as defendants. The claims arose from an incident on May 15, 2020, when Peace was a pretrial detainee.

Peace alleged that Deputy Wu used excessive force while handcuffing him. He also alleged that Captain Tilton violated his due-process rights by allowing Peace to be placed in disciplinary housing for 30 days, with loss of canteen, telephone, and walk-time privileges, without a sufficient evidentiary basis. Defendants submitted security videos, declarations, medical records, incident reports, and deposition testimony in support of their summary-judgment motion.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Defendants argued that Peace’s claims should be barred because he failed to complete the jail’s grievance process. Peace testified that he submitted four grievances concerning the incident, received a response to one, and did not receive responses to the others. He produced copies of two grievances dated May 17 and May 24, 2020. The jail’s search did not locate a record of a grievance related to the incident.

The court concluded that Peace had produced enough evidence to show that the grievance process may have been effectively unavailable because jail officials did not respond. The court also stated that it could not decide credibility disputes on summary judgment. It therefore denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the exhaustion issue.

Excessive-Force Claim

For a pretrial detainee’s excessive-force claim, the question is whether the force used was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. Defendants argued that Wu used reasonable, minimal force because Peace disobeyed orders, turned away from Wu, and resisted handcuffing. They also relied on the relatively limited injuries Peace described, which included a bitten lip and temporary back pain.

Peace’s verified complaint stated that he was attempting to submit to handcuffing when Wu grabbed him, placed him in a headlock, and wrestled him into a sink and wall. Wu’s declaration stated that he attempted to wrestle Peace to the ground, inadvertently placed him in a headlock, and maintained the position until another deputy assisted him.

The court found genuine disputes of material fact about whether Peace resisted or was combative and whether the force was necessary and objectively reasonable. The videos had no sound, and the court found that they did not clearly resolve whether Peace resisted during the initial struggle. A reasonable jury could find Wu’s use of force objectively unreasonable. The court also rejected defendants’ argument that Peace’s claim failed because he lacked a significant physical injury, explaining that the physical-injury requirement cited by defendants did not bar damages for an alleged constitutional violation.

The court separately denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is a defense that can protect government officials from damages unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court concluded that the disputed facts prevented it from deciding that defense in defendants’ favor.

Due-Process Claim

Peace alleged that Captain Tilton allowed him to be placed in disciplinary housing without an evidentiary basis. The record, however, showed that Lieutenant James Shannon made the disciplinary decision during an investigatory hearing and that Tilton was not present. The evidence showed that Peace received written notice, a 24-hour period before the hearing, an opportunity to explain his position, an opportunity to identify witnesses, and a written disposition. The record also contained some evidence supporting the disciplinary decision, including incident reports and Peace’s statements at the hearing.

The court concluded that Peace received the procedural protections required for the disciplinary proceeding and that some evidence supported the decision to impose approximately 30 days of restricted housing and loss of visits, telephone, recreation, and commissary privileges. It therefore granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the due-process claim and stated that the final judgment would be entered in favor of Captain Tilton and against Peace on that claim.

Other Motions and Case Status

Peace filed a motion labeled a “Motion to Reconsider.” Because the court had not yet ruled on the summary-judgment motion when Peace filed it, the court denied that motion as premature. To the extent the motion requested additional time to oppose summary judgment, the court granted that request and extended the deadline nunc pro tunc to August 1, 2022, the date Peace filed his opposition.

The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman for mediation or settlement proceedings through the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program and ordered Peace to attend and participate. The order stated that, if the matter did not settle, the case would proceed to trial. Judge Illston’s order granted defendants’ summary-judgment motion in part as to the due-process claim and denied it in part as to the excessive-force claim.