The Estate of Demetrius Stanley v. City of San Jose

Background

The case arose from a May 31, 2021 deadly encounter between San Jose police officers and Demetrius Stanley, who was under covert police observation before a planned arrest. Mimi Lebreton sued individually and on behalf of Stanley’s estate. The complaint asserted five claims: excessive force under the Fourth Amendment against Officer Anthony Baza; a Fourteenth Amendment familial-loss claim by Lebreton against Baza; a California Bane Act claim against Baza and the City of San Jose; battery against Baza and the City; and negligence/wrongful death against all defendants.

The court had previously dismissed the only claim against Officer Hans Jorgensen without leave to amend and denied the motion to dismiss in all other respects. The City and Baza then moved for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs stipulated that Baza was entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and conceded summary judgment on the Bane Act claim.

The undisputed account was that Baza and Jorgensen were conducting reconnaissance near Stanley’s residence. Jorgensen, dressed as a jogger, walked past the residence while Baza remained in an unmarked vehicle. After Stanley left the residence, Baza believed Stanley was following Jorgensen with a gun. Jorgensen ran away, and Baza believed he might need to rescue him. Baza did not identify himself as a police officer. Stanley later approached Baza’s vehicle, opened the driver-side door, and, according to Baza and plaintiffs’ account, raised a gun toward Baza. Baza shot Stanley twice in the chest. Stanley died at the scene.

Motion to Seal

Plaintiffs asked to seal an audio recording of Baza’s interview with investigators and portions of their opposition brief referring to that recording. Defendants did not oppose the motion and confirmed at oral argument that the recording did not need to be sealed. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to seal and ordered plaintiffs to file an unredacted opposition brief publicly. The recording and other manually filed exhibits were also to become part of the public record.

Summary-Judgment Ruling

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court granted defendants’ motion as unopposed on claim 1, the estate’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim; claim 2, Lebreton’s Fourteenth Amendment claim; and claim 3, the estate’s California Bane Act claim.

The court denied defendants’ motion on claim 5, negligence/wrongful death. Under California law, police officers must use reasonable care when using deadly force, and their actions leading up to the shooting may be considered as part of the circumstances surrounding the shooting. The parties disagreed about whether the reconnaissance plan was improperly created or carried out and whether Baza should have identified himself as a police officer at several points.

The court concluded that plaintiffs had not shown a triable issue based solely on alleged defects in the operational plan, because they had not presented evidence or legal authority making those alleged acts or omissions attributable to Baza. But the court found a triable issue about whether Baza should have identified himself when he saw Stanley following Jorgensen with a loaded gun. The court noted evidence that officers are generally trained to come out of cover when a fellow officer is in danger, as well as competing expert opinions about whether Baza’s conduct was unreasonable. Because a jury could resolve that dispute in plaintiffs’ favor, the court denied summary judgment on the negligence claim.

The court also denied defendants’ motion on claim 4, the estate’s battery claim. Under California law, an officer’s use of force must be reasonable to avoid liability for battery. Because the court found triable issues about the reasonableness of Baza’s conduct, it held that a jury must decide the battery claim as well.

Other Defenses and Disposition

Defendants argued that Baza’s decision not to identify himself was protected by California Government Code section 820.2 and that California Penal Code section 196 barred liability for a justifiable homicide. The court held that defendants had not sufficiently shown that section 820.2 applied because they had not established that Baza’s conduct was a protected planning or policy decision. The court also explained that the section 196 defense depended on whether the shooting was justified or reasonable, which could not be resolved on the disputed record at summary judgment. The court found that defendants had not forfeited these defenses by raising them late, but it did not grant summary judgment on them.

The final order granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It granted the motion as unopposed on claims 1, 2, and 3, and otherwise denied it as to claims 4 and 5. Plaintiffs’ motion to seal was denied.