Ciria v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Joaquin Ciria sued the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Police Department, and Inspectors Arthur Gerrans and James Crowley and Officer Nicholas J. Rubino. He asserted civil-rights and state-law claims based on his arrest, prosecution, conviction, and incarceration for Felix Bastarrica’s murder. Ciria’s conviction was vacated in April 2022, and he was released from custody two days later.

The defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over facts that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view disputed evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

Nondisclosure claim

Ciria claimed that the defendants withheld favorable evidence, including information about his appearance, whereabouts, and alleged surveillance that would have supported his alibi. He narrowed the claim in opposition to those theories. The court granted summary judgment on this claim. It found that the appearance information was known to Ciria and that the hairstyle issue had been litigated at trial. It also found that Ciria’s testimony about a months-long surveillance operation and surveillance confirming that he was home was not supported by persuasive evidence sufficient to create a genuine factual dispute.

Fabrication of evidence claim

The court denied summary judgment on Ciria’s claim that Crowley and Gerrans deliberately fabricated evidence. The court found that a jury could determine that the inspectors used coercive interrogation techniques during their interview of George Varela. According to the opinion, Varela initially gave information supporting Ciria’s alibi, but the inspectors threatened to charge Varela with murder and told him information that could help him avoid being treated as a suspect. The court concluded that a jury could find the conduct coercive enough that the inspectors should have known it could produce false information.

The court also rejected qualified immunity for Crowley and Gerrans on this claim. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from damages for conduct that did not violate clearly established law. The court found that, in 1990, it was clearly established that officials should not use these techniques to elicit false evidence.

Malicious-prosecution claim

The court denied summary judgment on Ciria’s federal malicious-prosecution claim. It found that a jury could conclude there was no probable cause to prosecute him. After removing information from the Varela interview that could be found fabricated, the remaining information in the warrant affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause. The court also found that the witness-identification procedures were suggestive and unreliable: Kathleen Guevara said Ciria’s photograph looked most like the suspect and later expressed only about 80 percent certainty, while Kenneth Duff did not make a positive identification until after Ciria’s arrest.

The court further found that a jury could infer the required improper purpose from presenting the witnesses as credible despite their failure to make positive identifications. It rejected qualified immunity for the defendants on this claim, including because qualified immunity does not protect judicial deception when a plaintiff makes the required showing that false information was included or relied on in obtaining a warrant.

Conspiracy claims

The court granted summary judgment on the fourth cause of action, Ciria’s conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It held that Crowley and Gerrans were entitled to qualified immunity on that claim under the intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine as applied in the authorities discussed by the court.

The court also granted summary judgment on the sixth cause of action, Ciria’s state-law conspiracy claim, because the claim was based on the same alleged conduct as the federal conspiracy claim.

Municipal liability and state-law claims

The court granted summary judgment on Ciria’s federal claims against the City and County of San Francisco. To impose municipal liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that a specific policy, custom, or training defect was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. The court found that Ciria had not provided admissible evidence that a department policy, custom, or training allowed the inspectors’ alleged conduct. The court stated that the remaining claims against the City and County were state-law claims.

The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that Ciria’s state-law claims were barred by a lack of probable cause or by the statute of limitations. It held that a jury could find no probable cause to arrest Ciria and that his claims related to his incarceration accrued when his conviction was vacated and he was released. The court allowed the Bane Act claim and the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim to continue. The defendants had not offered an independent basis for summary judgment on the emotional-distress claim.

Punitive damages

The court denied summary judgment on punitive damages. It found that, if a jury accepted Ciria’s account, it could find that Crowley and Gerrans acted with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights or with the state of mind required for punitive damages under California law.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It granted summary judgment on the second, fourth, and sixth causes of action; all claims against Nicholas J. Rubino; and the § 1983 claims against the City and County of San Francisco. The motion was denied in all other respects.