Johnson v. Alameda County Sheriff Department - Santa Rita Jail

Background

Etta Johnson, representing herself, sued several unnamed Alameda County Sheriff’s Office officers over a February 2019 incident involving her arrest. Her operative complaint asserted three claims: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, battery, and conversion. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the excessive-force and battery claims.

Defendants submitted body-camera footage from five officers, an incident report, deposition excerpts, and evidence about the recording system. The footage showed officers responding to an incident on an AC Transit bus after a report that Johnson had hit a male passenger. It showed officers asking Johnson to leave the bus, helping handcuff her, placing her in a patrol car, attempting to administer a breathalyzer test, and transporting her to Santa Rita Jail.

Johnson did not dispute the contents of the videos but argued that they depicted a different incident from September 2019. In her declaration, she described an officer twisting her right arm, causing her to hear a “pop” and fall, and later placing a breathalyzer in her mouth. She also identified differences between her recollection and the videos concerning the bus driver, the number of officers, the location, and the time and date.

Court’s Analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The party opposing the motion must identify specific supporting evidence rather than rely only on the pleadings.

For the excessive-force claim, the court applied the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard. That standard requires consideration of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the suspected offense, any immediate threat, resistance or attempted flight, the amount of force used, available alternatives, and the person’s mental and emotional state.

The court concluded that the body-camera footage depicted the February 2019 incident at issue. The court relied on similarities between the footage and Johnson’s own description, including the bus route, nighttime rain, the man reaching into her purse, the request that she leave the bus, and the breathalyzer attempt. The court also noted that the footage referred to Black History Month and that the incident report identified the bus driver as a Black woman. Defendants submitted evidence that the footage and its date-and-time information could not be altered, and Johnson offered no evidence disputing that showing.

The court further noted that Johnson admitted in her deposition that the videos did not show an officer injuring or twisting her arm. Because the footage did not show the alleged injury or arm twisting and no evidence disputed the footage’s authenticity, the court held that there was no genuine issue for trial. It therefore granted summary judgment on the excessive-force claim.

The court analyzed the California battery claim under the same reasonableness standard used for the excessive-force claim. For the same reasons, it held that Johnson had not provided specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial and granted summary judgment on the battery claim.

Disposition

Judge Donna M. Ryu granted Defendants’ partial motion for summary judgment. The only claim remaining was Johnson’s conversion claim. The court scheduled a case-management conference to set a schedule for that claim.

Note on the Record

The opinion consistently describes the lawsuit as arising from a February 2019 incident, but one passage refers to body-camera footage from February 14, 2023. That appears in the opinion’s discussion of the evidence; the ruling otherwise identifies the incident as occurring in February 2019.