Mitchell v. County of Contra Costa

Background

Mitchell brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Contra Costa County and Deputy Sheriffs Thomas Brook and Kyle Emley based on his February 2020 arrest. The remaining claims included Fourth Amendment claims against Brook and Emley for excessive force, malicious prosecution, and fabrication of material facts, along with a municipal-liability claim against the County based on alleged policies, customs, or practices. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment.

The arrest followed a police pursuit of a black Audi that had been reported stolen. Mitchell was a passenger. After the Audi stopped, the other occupants ran, and Mitchell initially remained in the car before also running away. Mitchell testified that officers chased him and ordered him to stop and get on the ground, but he continued running for about ten seconds before surrendering. He said officers struck him after he got onto the ground and caused injuries to his teeth and face. Brook and Emley reported instead that Mitchell tried to climb over a fence, fell face first onto the sidewalk, and was then pinned and handcuffed.

Malicious-Prosecution Claim

A § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim requires, among other things, prosecution without probable cause. The court held that probable cause was a legal question because the relevant facts known to Brook and Emley were undisputed.

The court concluded that the undisputed facts established probable cause to believe Mitchell violated California Penal Code § 148(a)(1), which prohibits willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer performing official duties. The officers responded to a vehicle pursuit, knew that people had fled from the vehicle, saw Mitchell running away, chased him, and ordered him to stop or get on the ground. Mitchell admitted that he knew officers were chasing him and continued running at full speed for about ten seconds after hearing their commands. The court concluded that this conduct willfully delayed the officers’ attempt to detain him. It therefore held that Mitchell could not establish the lack-of-probable-cause element and granted summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claim.

Fabrication-of-Evidence Claim

Mitchell alleged that Brook and Emley fabricated evidence by falsely stating that he attempted to climb or jump over a fence and fell face first onto the sidewalk. The court analyzed the claim as arising under the Fourth Amendment because that was the claim pleaded in the amended complaint, not under the Fourteenth Amendment as Mitchell’s opposition papers discussed.

The court concluded that probable cause existed even without considering the allegedly false statements about how the chase ended. The undisputed facts that Mitchell fled from the Audi, continued running after officers ordered him to get on the ground, and was then apprehended were sufficient to establish probable cause for the § 148(a)(1) arrest and prosecution. The court also found that Mitchell was arrested, taken to the hospital, and released before Brook and Emley prepared the reports containing the allegedly false statements. His counsel acknowledged that no Fourth Amendment seizure resulted from those statements. The court granted summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment fabrication-of-evidence claim.

Mitchell also requested leave to add a Fourteenth Amendment fabrication-of-evidence claim. The court denied that request because it was made late, after discovery had closed, and the defendants showed potential prejudice from reopening discovery. The court further stated that, even if amendment were allowed, the existing record would support summary judgment because Mitchell presented no evidence that the allegedly false statements caused the criminal charge.

Municipal-Liability Claim

The defendants also moved for summary judgment on Mitchell’s claim against the County based on policies, customs, or practices. Mitchell asked the court to defer that issue so he could take a deposition of the County under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Because that deposition was part of a pending discovery dispute, the court held the motion concerning the municipal-liability claim in abeyance pending resolution of that dispute.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. It granted summary judgment on Mitchell’s malicious-prosecution and fabrication-of-evidence claims, denied leave to add a Fourteenth Amendment fabrication-of-evidence claim, and held the motion concerning the municipal-liability claim in abeyance pending resolution of the related discovery dispute. Judge Donna Ryu entered the order on April 17, 2023.