Dyer v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Caroline Dyer was arrested during May 2020 demonstrations in San Francisco protesting George Floyd’s killing. She alleged that officers used excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, and also asserted related state-law claims. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence leaves any genuine factual dispute requiring a trial. Dyer moved for permission to add Officer Kristopher Stoffel, who had been involved in her arrest but was not originally named.

The events included Officer Stoffel’s use of an extended-range impact weapon from approximately two feet away after Dyer raised a sign and made a striking motion toward him. Officer Terence Saw and others then arrested Dyer. Dyer alleged that officers tripped, tackled, restrained, and handcuffed her with excessive force. The defendants relied substantially on body-camera footage.

Amendment

The court granted Dyer permission to amend. Although Dyer had not provided a meaningful explanation for the delay, the court found no undue prejudice to the defendants. The defendants had conditionally not opposed the amendment if the existing summary-judgment motion applied to the amended complaint and the case was not delayed or reopened for discovery.

The proposed amended complaint was deemed filed. Dyer was not required to file a version omitting her false-arrest claim, but that claim was deemed voluntarily dismissed. The amended complaint also omitted the Monell claim, while Dyer continued to pursue state-law claims against the City and County of San Francisco under a respondeat superior theory, as described by the court.

Summary Judgment

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It held that the body-camera evidence and officer declarations showed that no reasonable jury could find Stoffel’s use of the non-lethal impact weapon excessive. The footage showed that Dyer at least attempted to strike Stoffel forcefully on the head or face, even though the footage did not conclusively establish that she made contact. The court concluded that Dyer’s contrary characterizations did not create a genuine factual dispute.

The court also rejected Dyer’s challenge to the force used to take her to the ground. It described the force as low to moderate, applied to a struggling suspect who had just engaged in an aggressive act toward an officer, and ending quickly. The court further held that Dyer had not presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the flexible cuffs were excessively tight or that another part of the arrest involved actionable excessive force.

The court noted that it therefore did not need to conduct a qualified-immunity analysis for the impact-weapon claim. It added that, to the extent the issue remained, Dyer had not overcome defendants’ showing that qualified immunity would apply. The court also explained that an alleged violation of departmental policy— including a policy generally restricting use of the devices from less than 15 feet—does not automatically establish a constitutional violation.

Disposition

The court granted Dyer’s motion for leave to amend and deemed the proposed amended complaint filed. It granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as applied to that complaint, granted the associated sealing motions, and stated that a separate judgment would be entered. The opinion is signed by Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge.