Sandoval v. City and County of San Francisco
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:22-cv-02409
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 10
In Sandoval v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Seeborg granted amendment, denied summary judgment, and allowed excessive-force claims to proceed.
Hunter Sandoval and the remaining defendants, including the City and County of San Francisco and the individual defendants still named after amendment; the case continued on the remaining claims.
What happened
In Sandoval v. City and County of San Francisco, Hunter Sandoval sued over his arrest during a May 2020 San Francisco demonstration, alleging excessive force and state-law violations.
The court allowed Sandoval to file an amended complaint, treated his false-arrest claim as voluntarily dismissed, and denied the defendants’ request for summary judgment. The court found that a jury could decide whether an officer drove a motorcycle into Sandoval and used excessive force during the arrest.
Judge Seeborg also granted the associated request to seal materials. The case therefore continued on the claims remaining after the amendment.
The detailed version
- Sandoval v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:22-cv-02409
- Richard Seeborg
- Jan. 3, 2023
Background
Hunter Sandoval was arrested during mass demonstrations in San Francisco on May 31, 2020. He alleged that the arrest involved excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, and also asserted state-law claims.
Before the court were the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Sandoval’s motion for leave to amend his complaint. The proposed amendment made limited factual changes, dropped all but two individual defendants, and removed a claim against the City and County of San Francisco based on municipal policy or custom. The original complaint had also been filed by Caroline Dyer, but the court had previously severed her claims from Sandoval’s case.
The incident began when Sandoval stood in front of a motorcycle ridden by San Francisco Police Department Captain Michael G. McEachern. The parties disputed whether McEachern told Sandoval to move and whether McEachern intentionally drove the motorcycle into him. They also disputed whether Sandoval grabbed the motorcycle to attack it or merely to keep his balance. Video evidence could reasonably support differing interpretations of these events.
McEachern then physically grabbed Sandoval, and a struggle followed. McEachern and Officer Scott Korte handcuffed Sandoval. Sandoval was booked on charges of assaulting a peace officer and resisting, and he was released later that evening.
Leave to Amend
The court granted Sandoval’s motion for leave to amend. Although Sandoval did not adequately explain why he waited to seek amendment, the court found no undue prejudice to the defendants and noted their conditional non-opposition. The proposed amended complaint was deemed filed.
Sandoval was not required to submit a revised complaint removing the false-arrest claim. Instead, the court deemed that claim voluntarily dismissed. The amended complaint also omitted the municipal-policy claim, which Sandoval had said he was withdrawing. The opinion states that Sandoval continued to pursue state-law claims against the City and County under a theory making the entity responsible for its employees’ conduct.
Summary Judgment
The defendants argued that all remaining claims failed because the force used to arrest Sandoval was reasonable under the circumstances. The court applied the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard, which requires balancing the intrusion on the person against the government’s interests, including the seriousness of the suspected offense, the threat posed, and resistance to arrest.
The court held that disputed facts required a trial. A reasonable fact finder could conclude that McEachern intentionally drove the motorcycle into Sandoval, even though it was moving slowly, and that the motorcycle could have caused injury. The court also found that standing in the officers’ way did not, by itself, justify driving a motorcycle into Sandoval, particularly because Sandoval disputed receiving an instruction to move.
The court separately concluded that a reasonable jury could find the force used to take Sandoval to the ground and handcuff him excessive. Even if McEachern reasonably believed Sandoval had tried to tip the motorcycle or had probable cause to arrest him for impeding the officers, the jury could find that McEachern used excessive force by forcefully grabbing and grappling with Sandoval before physical restraint was shown to be necessary. The court noted that the video did not support Sandoval’s claim that officers punched him, and that a fact finder could determine that Korte independently used no unreasonable force.
The defendants’ qualified-immunity defense did not justify judgment at this stage. The court stated that the defense would succeed only if the fact finder accepted the defendants’ account of the force used, the threat posed, and Sandoval’s resistance. Those factual disputes could not be resolved on summary judgment.
Disposition
The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, granted Sandoval’s motion for leave to amend, deemed the proposed amended complaint filed, and deemed the false-arrest claim voluntarily dismissed. The associated sealing motion was granted. Judge Richard Seeborg signed the order.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.