Cordero v. City of San Francisco

Background

David Cordero alleged that San Francisco police officers used excessive force when they stopped and arrested him for running several stop lights at high speed during the early morning hours of August 12, 2018. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. After reviewing the parties’ written submissions and video evidence and hearing oral argument, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

Fourth Amendment and Section 1983 Claim

A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows a person to seek relief for constitutional violations committed by people acting under state law. Cordero claimed that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force. The court evaluates such a claim by asking whether the force was objectively reasonable in light of the circumstances confronting the officers.

The court denied Officer Oesterich’s motion for summary judgment. Cordero said Oesterich struck him with closed fists about five times and kneed his legs and back numerous times. Oesterich said the force was reasonable because Cordero was resisting and appeared to be moving his hands toward his waistband, causing Oesterich to fear that Cordero had a weapon. The court found genuine disputes about Cordero’s resistance and hand movements. It also found that the video did not conclusively establish the defendants’ version of events, and that the first strikes may have occurred before the alleged resistance on which the defendants relied.

The court also denied Officer Cotter’s motion for summary judgment. Cordero alleged that Cotter struck him in the face while Oesterich was striking him and later applied extreme force to his neck and head after he was handcuffed. The court found factual disputes about whether Cordero’s hands were near his waistband, whether the facial strikes were necessary, and whether the force applied after handcuffing was reasonable. The video and audio could support a finding that the force applied to Cordero’s neck was excessive or retaliatory rather than necessary to complete the search. The video also could support a finding that Cotter could not reasonably have believed Cordero tried to swing at him with his leg when Cotter stepped hard on Cordero’s ankle.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Sharron because Cordero did not identify facts supporting liability against him. It also granted summary judgment in favor of Officers Cowhig, Defillipo, and Williams on Cordero’s theories that they failed to intervene or were integral participants in the alleged excessive force. The court found that they lacked an opportunity to intervene in the initial force and that the evidence did not show they witnessed, knew about, or participated in the alleged excessive force.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity can protect government officials from liability unless the evidence could show a constitutional violation and the violated right was clearly established in the specific circumstances. The court held that Officers Oesterich and Cotter were not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. Taking Cordero’s version of events as true for purposes of the motion, a reasonable jury could find that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they punched him, that Cotter stepped on his ankle, and that Cotter applied extreme force to his neck while he was handcuffed. The court concluded that existing law clearly established that punching a nonresisting person to free the person’s arms for handcuffing, applying gratuitous ankle restraint to a handcuffed person, and applying extreme force to the neck and head of a handcuffed, nonresisting person violated the Fourth Amendment.

State-Law Claims

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that Cordero’s notice under California’s Government Claims Act was inadequate because it listed the incident time as 8:45 p.m., even though the incident occurred 14 hours earlier. The notice correctly identified Cordero, the date, the location, and other information sufficient to allow San Francisco to investigate and evaluate the claim. The court held that Cordero substantially complied with the claim-presentation requirement.

The court held that Cordero’s negligence and battery claims against Officers Oesterich and Cotter survived for the same reasons as the Section 1983 excessive-force claims. Those claims failed against Officers Cowhig, Williams, and Defillipo for the reasons already stated. Under the California Bane Act, the court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could find Officers Cotter and Oesterich liable, including the required specific intent to violate Cordero’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure. The court concluded that the Bane Act claim did not support liability against the other officers.

Disposition

The court denied summary judgment as to Officers Oesterich and Cotter and granted summary judgment as to Officer Sharron and Officers Cowhig, Defillipo, and Williams. The order disposed of Docket No. 63. Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley signed the order on December 12, 2022.