Beitch v. Magnus et al

Filing 79

*ORDER Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Leave to Allow Non-Electronic Filing of Exhibit #2 (Doc. 66 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED AS MOOT in part. The City Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff Aaron Beitch [sic] Response to Defendants Op position to Strike Plaintiff Motion of Facts in Support of Plaintiff [sic] Opposition to Summary of Judgment Doc. 71 (Doc. 72 ) is DENIED. The City Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald on 6/1/2020. (See attached Order for complete details)(DLC) *Modified file date from 5/29/2020 to 6/1/2020; NEF regenerated on 6/2/2020 (SCH).

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Aaron Harvey Beitch,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

No. CV-18-0067-TUC-BGM
ORDER

v.
Chris Magnus, et al.,
Defendants.

14

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants Chris Magnus, Justin Lane,

15

Mickey Petersen, Dennis J. Miller, Paulina Reed, Chelsea Lynn Gutierrez, Robert Jude

16

Miranda, David W. Hill, Colin Jefferson Hyde, Daniel Rodriguez, Brendan Wiberg, and

17

Cynthia Kozda’s (the “City Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50). The

18

City Defendants have also filed a Statement of Facts in Support of Their Motion for

19

Summary Judgment (“SOF”) (Doc. 51), as well as a Supplemental State of Facts in

20

Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 56). Plaintiff filed a Motion of

21

Supplemental Facts to Support Plaintiff Aaron Beitch Opposition to Defendant’s Motion

22

for Summary Judgment (Doc. 62), which this Court construed as a response. See Order

23

4/29/2019 (Doc. 65). Plaintiff then filed an Amended Motion of Opposition to Summary

24

Judgment (Doc. 67) which the Court construes as a supplemental response. Plaintiff also

25

filed an Amended Motion of Facts in Support of Plaintiff Aaron Beitch [sic] Opposition

26

to Summary Judgment (Doc. 68). The City Defendants filed their Reply to Plaintiff’s

27

Amended Motion of Opposition to Summary Judgement (Doc. 67) and Motion to Strike

28

Plaintiff Aaron Beitch Amended Motion of Facts in Support of Plaintiff Aaron Beitch

1

Opposition to Summary of Judgment (Doc. 68) (Doc. 69). In turn, Plaintiff filed a

2

Response to Defendants Opposition to Strike Plaintiff Motion of Facts in Support of

3

Plaintiff Opposition to Summary Judgment (Doc. 71). As such, the motion is fully

4

briefed and ripe for adjudication. Also pending are Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for

5

Leave to Allow Non-Electronic Filing of Exhibit #2 (Doc. 66) and the City Defendants’

6

Motion to Strike Plaintiff Aaron Beitch [sic] Response to Defendants Opposition to

7

Strike Plaintiff Motion of Facts in Support of Plaintiff [sic] Opposition to Summary of

8

Judgment Doc. 71 (Doc. 72).

9

The United States Magistrate Judge has received the written consent of both

10

parties and presides over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73, Federal

11

Rules of Civil Procedure. In its discretion, the Court finds this case suitable for decision

12

without oral argument. See LRCiv. 7.2(f). The Parties have adequately presented the

13

facts and legal arguments in their briefs and supporting documents, and the decisional

14

process would not be significantly aided by oral argument.

15
16

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

17

Plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a

18

violation of his civil rights during a police encounter. See Compl. (Doc. 1). The Court

19

views the facts, as it must, in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.

20

A.

Police Encounter

21

On August 9, 2017, at approximately 4:30 a.m., Tucson Police Department

22

(“TPD”) officers were dispatched to a shots fired or a suspect with a gun call at an

23

apartment complex near 14th Avenue and Kelso Street. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Event

24

Chronology—E172210112 (Exh. “3”) (Doc. 51-1) at 181 & Miller Decl. (Exh. “8”) (Doc.

25

51-1) at ¶¶ 3, 6 & Hyde Decl. (Exh. “9”) (Doc. 51-1) at ¶ 3. The call details indicate that

26

“multiple people” were heard screaming at each other and a gun was mentioned. Defs.’

27
28

1

Page reference is to the CM/ECF page number for clarity.

-2-

1

SOF (Doc. 51), Exh. “3” at 18. A male subject with a gun was described as a black male,

2

twenties, black hat, white shirt, and jeans, with a pistol in his hand. Id., Exh. “3” at 18;

3

see also Pl.’s Response re SOF (Doc. 68) Wiberg Body Worn Camera Full Length Video

4

(Exh. “2”) at 3:25–3:31. The officers parked down the street and moved on foot on 14th

5

Avenue. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Exh. “8” at ¶¶ 4, 6 & Exh. “9” at ¶ 4, 6. Officers Hyde

6

and Miller had their weapons out in the low ready position. Id., Exh. “8” at ¶ 5 & Exh.

7

“9” at ¶ 5.

8

Officer Wiberg was wearing a body camera, and it captured the scene and the

9

officers’ activity. Id., Wiberg Decl. (Exh. “10”) (Doc. 51-1) at ¶¶ 3–6. One Officer was

10

using the light on top of his rifle to illuminate the cars parked along the side of the road

11

as they progressed down the street. Id., Wiberg Body Worn Camera (Exh. “1”) at 1:15–

12

1:30, 2:38–2:40; Pl.’s Response re SOF (Doc. 68), Exh. “2” at 8:38–9:14. Officers would

13

have stopped anyone that they encountered to gather information. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51),

14

Exh. “8” at ¶ 11.

15

Shortly after TPD officers started their canvass of the area, Plaintiff Beitch was

16

observed getting into a car on the street. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Wiberg Body Worn

17

Camera (Exh. “1”) at 1:14–1:20. Plaintiff came out of a nearby apartment. Id., Exh. “1”

18

at 2:15–2:30. Officers noted Plaintiff was wearing a white t-shirt and jeans. Pl.’s

19

Response re SOF (Doc. 68), Exh. “2” at 8:28–8:45. Officers shined their flashlights on

20

Plaintiff and told him to stop. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Exh. “1” at 1:14–1:20. Officers

21

shouted at Plaintiff to get out of the car. Id., Exh. “1” at 1:45–1:50. Plaintiff stepped out

22

of the driver’s side of his car and showed his hands. Id., Exh. “1” at 1:48–1:53; Pl.’s

23

Response re SOF (Doc. 68), Exh. “2” at 8:57–9:07.

24

approached Plaintiff while another officer maintained the spotlight on Plaintiff until other

25

officers approached with flashlights and provided additional light. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51),

26

Wiberg Body Worn Camera (Exh. “1”) at 2:10–2:15; Pl.’s Response re SOF (Doc. 68),

27

Exh. “2” at 8:57–9:23. Plaintiff identified himself to Officer Reed and indicated that he

28

lived nearby. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Exh. “1” at 2:15–2:30; Pl.’s Response re SOF (Doc.

-3-

Officers Reed and Kozda

1

68), Exh. “2” at 9:25–9:40. Officer Kozda secured Plaintiff in handcuffs while Officer

2

Reed asked him his address. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Kozda Decl. (Exh. “11”) at ¶¶ 8–10;

3

Pl.’s Response re SOF (Doc. 68), Exh. “2” at 9:25–9:40. Officer Reed verified Plaintiff’s

4

identity and verified that he was not involved in the disturbance the officers were

5

investigating. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Exh. “11” at ¶ 11.

6

As soon as Plaintiff was secure, Officers Miller and Hyde continued down the

7

street, away from Plaintiff. Id., Exh. “1” at 2:7–2:32. When Officer Reed asked Plaintiff

8

whether he had identification, Plaintiff responded that it was in his pocket. Defs.’ SOF

9

(Doc. 51), Beitch Depo. 11/16/2018 (Exh. “7”) at 63:20–64:5, 91:15–92:19. Officer
Id., Exh. “7” at 91:19–92:3.

10

Reed frisked Plaintiff and obtained his identification.

11

Officer Reed was able to verify Plaintiff’s identity within a few minutes and she

12

determined that he was not involved in the disturbance that the officers were

13

investigating. Id., Exh. “11” at ¶ 11. At the conclusion of her investigation of Plaintiff,

14

Officer Reed returned his identification and released him. Id., Exh. “7” at 112:1–9. At

15

no time during the encounter did officers have their weapons pointed at Plaintiff’s head.

16

Id., Exh. “1” at 1:40–2:30.

17

continued their canvass of the area. Id., Exh. “1” at 2:15–2:50 & Exh. “8” at ¶ 12.

After the brief interaction with Plaintiff, TPD officers

18

In the end, Officers Wiberg, Gutierrez, Miranda, Rodriguez, and Hill did not have

19

physical contact with Plaintiff at the scene or point weapons at him. Id., Wiberg Decl.

20

(Exh. “10”), Hill Decl. (Exh. “12”), Miranda Decl. (Exh. “18”), Rodriguez Decl. (Exh.

21

“19”); Defs.’ Suppl. SOF (Doc. 56), Gutierrez Decl. (Exh. “17”). Sergeant Hill was not

22

on scene when officers made contact with Plaintiff. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Exh. “12” at ¶

23

7.

24

Sergeant Hill arrived. Id., Exh. “12” at ¶ 8.

Lastly, Officer Reed was wrapping up her investigatory stop of Plaintiff when

25

B.

26

After the encounter with TPD officers, Plaintiff lodged a formal complaint with

27

the department. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Hill Decl. (Exh. “12”) at ¶ 10 & Petersen Decl.

28

(Exh. “13”) at ¶¶ 4–6. Plaintiff’s complaint was reviewed by the Office of Professional

Tucson Police Department Complaint

-4-

1

Standards (“OPS”). Id., Exh. “12” at ¶ 10 & Exh. “13” at ¶ 3–4. Sergeant Petersen

2

conducted the OPS investigation. Id., Exh. “13” at ¶ 4 & Lane Decl. (Exh. “14”) at ¶ 5.

3

Sergeant Petersen determined that the officers exhibited appropriate safety and tactical

4

techniques during their encounter with Plaintiff. Id., Exh. “13” at ¶ 7. Sergeant Petersen

5

further determined that two policy violation did occur, including 1) Officer Hyde failing

6

to turn on his body worn camera and 2) Officer Reed failing to write a report

7

documenting her investigative stop of Plaintiff. Id., Exh. “13” at ¶ 8 & Exh. “14” at ¶ 5.

8

Sergeant Petersen did not have any supervisory authority over the individual officers

9

whose conduct he investigated. Id., Exh. “13” at ¶ 10. Captain Lane, Sergeant Petersen’s

10

supervisor, concurred with Sergeant Petersen’s analysis. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Petersen

11

Decl. (Exh. “13”) at ¶ 9 & Lane Decl. (Exh. “14”) at ¶ 5. The City of Tucson’s

12

Independent Police Auditor Mitchell A. Kagan reviewed the OPS investigation and

13

findings related to Plaintiff’s formal complaint and concurred with the same. Id., Kagan

14

Decl. at ¶ 5.

15
16

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

17

Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most

18

favorable to the nonmoving party, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255,

19

106 S. Ct. 2505, 2513, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986), “there is no genuine issue as to any

20

material fact and [] the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.

21

R. Civ. P. 56(c). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the

22

governing law,” and a dispute is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury

23

could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S. Ct. at

24

2510. Thus, factual disputes that have no bearing on the outcome of a suit are irrelevant

25

to the consideration of a motion for summary judgment. Id. In order to withstand a

26

motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must show “specific facts showing

27

that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.

28

Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Moreover, a “mere scintilla of evidence” does

-5-

1

not preclude the entry of summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S. Ct. at

2

2512. The United States Supreme Court also recognized that “[w]hen opposing parties

3

tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no

4

reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for

5

purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,

6

380, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007).

7
8
9

III.

ANALYSIS
A.

10

Amended Motion for Leave to Allow Non-Electronic Filing of Exhibit
#2–Officer Wiberg’s Full-Length Body Worn Camera Video

11

Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Leave to Allow Non-Electronic Filing of

12

Exhibit #2 Full-Length BWC Video Taken from Defendant Officer Wiberg, along with

13

Audio CDs Ops Hearing of All Defendant Officers, 911 Audio CD, Supporting Paper

14

(Doc. 66). On April 29, 2019, the Court issued its Order granting Plaintiff’s request to

15

file the full-length video of Officer Wiberg’s body worn camera. See Order 4/29/2019

16

(Doc. 65). Plaintiff did not submit any additional non-paper exhibits with his amended

17

motion. See Pl.’s Amended Motion for Leave to Allow Non-Electronic Filing (Doc. 66)

18

and related docket text. In light of the Court’s previous ruling, Plaintiff’s amended

19

motion is moot. The Court will, however, consider the additional documents submitted

20

with Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 66) to the extent that they are relevant to his opposition of

21

the City Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for

22

Leave to Allow Non-Electronic Filing (Doc. 66) is DENIED AS MOOT in part and

23

GRANTED in part.

24
25

B.

Evidentiary Objections
1. Factual Admissions

26

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s responsive filings do not comply with this

27

district’s Local Rules. See Defs.’ Reply (Doc. 69) at 4. Defendants also urge that

28

because Plaintiff failed to properly controvert their statement of facts, the Court should

-6-

1

deem their facts “admitted” for purposes of summary judgment. See id. at 5.

2

Federal Rule 56(c) mandates that “[a] party asserting that a fact . . . is genuinely

3

disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the

4

record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or

5

declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only),

6

admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials [in the record.]” Fed. R. Civ. P.

7

56(c)(1).

8

evidence” is grounds for objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). Moreover, the Rules of

9

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”)

10

require that”[e]ach additional fact . . . must refer to a specific admissible portion of the

11

record where the fact finds support.” LRCiv. 56.1(b). After Plaintiff filed his initial

12

response, the Court notified him of the requirements of Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil

13

Procedure, and LRCiv. 56.1, and allowed him to supplement his response accordingly.

14

See Order 4/3/2019 (Doc. 60). It is not the Court’s task “to scour the record in search of

15

a genuine issue of triable fact.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996)

16

(quoting Richards v. Combined Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 247 251 (7th Cir. 1995)).

A fact that “cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in

17

Here, Plaintiff’s controverting facts argues his position, but does not refute the

18

facts put forth by the City Defendants. See Pl.’s Amended Motion of Facts (Doc. 68).

19

Rather, Plaintiff has outlined what occurred, as well as provided documents exchanged as

20

part of the disclosure process. See id.; see also Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to Allow Non-

21

Electronic Filing (Doc. 66). Although the Court will not summarily grant Defendants

22

summary judgment for these shortcomings, bare factual allegations and conclusory

23

statements have not been given any weight.

24

2. Motion to Strike

25

The City Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff Aaron Beitch [sic] Response

26

to Defendants Opposition to Strike Plaintiff Motion of Facts in Support of Plaintiff [sic]

27

Opposition to Summary of Judgment Doc. 71 (Doc. 72). The City Defendants contend

28

Plaintiff’s response is an improper sur-reply and should be stricken. As an initial matter,

-7-

1

the City Defendants chose to file a motion to strike embedded in their Reply (Doc. 69).

2

Plaintiff was entitled to respond to the motion. See LRCiv. 7.2. The Court declines the

3

City Defendants’ invitation to penalize Plaintiff for being pro se and not fully

4

understanding what he was and was not allowed to respond to in Defendants’ motion. To

5

the extent that it is relevant, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 72) in its

6

entirety. The City Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 72) is DENIED.

7

C.

8

The City Defendants seek summary judgment because their actions are qualifiedly

9

immune or otherwise non-actionable. Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (Doc. 50) at 4–10.

10

Relying on various excerpts of TPD policy, Plaintiff argues that none of the officers are

11

entitled to qualified immunity. Pl.’s Response (Doc. 67) at 10–26.

12

Summary Judgment

1. Qualified Immunity

13

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their

14

conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

15

reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.

16

Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982). “Qualified immunity shields federal and state

17

officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official

18

violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’

19

at the time of the challenged conduct. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735, 131 S. Ct.

20

2074, 2080, 179 L. Ed. 2d (2011) (citations omitted); see also Tarabochia v. Adkins, 766

21

F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation omitted). These prongs may be

22

addressed in any order, depending on the circumstances in the particular case at hand.

23

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236, 129 S. Ct. 808, 818, 172 L. Ed. 2d (2009). In its

24

analysis, the Court must view the facts “in the light most favorable to the injured party.”

25

Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).

26

“A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the

27

time of the challenged conduct ‘[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficiently clear’ that

28

every ‘reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that

-8-

1

right.’” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741, 131 S. Ct. at 2083 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 493

2

U.S. 635, 640, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987)) (alterations in original). The

3

Supreme Court of the United States has “repeatedly told courts—and the Ninth Circuit in

4

particular—not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” City and

5

County of San Francisco, Calif. v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, —, 135 S. Ct. 1765, 1775–76,

6

191 L.Ed.2d 856 (2015) (quoting al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742, 131 S. Ct. at 2084). Although

7

the Supreme Court of the United States does “not require a case directly on point before

8

concluding that the law is clearly established, . . . existing precedent must have placed the

9

statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741, 131 S. Ct.

10

at 2083. “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can

11

simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

12

Sheehan, 575 U.S. at —, 135 S. Ct. at 1776. As such, qualified immunity “provides

13

ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the

14

law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S. Ct. 1092, 1096, 89 L. Ed. 2d 271

15

(1986).

16

2. The Fourth Amendment

17

“The Fourth Amendment prohibits ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ by the

18

Government, and its protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles

19

that fall short of traditional arrest.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S. Ct.

20

744, 750, 151 L. Ed. 2d 740 (2002) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9, 88 S. Ct. 1868,

21

20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968); United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S. Ct. 690, 66

22

L. Ed. 2d 621 (1981)). For the police to conduct a valid stop, they must “have a

23

reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot.”

24

United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S. Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989)

25

(internal quotes and citation omitted). “[T]he level of suspicion required for a Terry

26

stop[, however,] is obviously less demanding than that for probable cause.” Id. at 8, 109

27

S. Ct. at 1585 (internal citations omitted).

28

conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal

“[W]here a police officer observes unusual

-9-

1

activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and

2

presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies

3

himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial

4

stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety,

5

he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully

6

limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons

7

which might be used to assault him.” Terry v. Ohio, 391 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S. Ct. 1868,

8

1884–85, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

9

“Reasonable suspicion is defined as ‘a particularized and objective basis for

10

suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’” United States v. Valdes-

11

Vega, 738 F.3d 1074, 1078 (quoting United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952, 968 (9th

12

Cir. 2013) (en banc)). “The reasonable-suspicion standard is not a particularly high

13

threshold to reach.” Id. Furthermore, although “a mere hunch is insufficient to justify a

14

stop, the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level required for probable

15

cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence

16

standard.” Id. (quoting Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274, 122 S. Ct. 744) (citations and internal

17

quotation marks omitted).

18

When making a reasonable-suspicion determination, the reviewing court “must

19

look at the ‘totality of the circumstances’ of each case to see whether the detaining officer

20

has a ‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting legal wrongdoing.”

21

States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S. Ct. 744, 750, 151 L. Ed. 2d 740 (2002)

22

(citations omitted); see also United States. v. Alvarez, 899 F.2d 833, 836 (9th Cir. 1990).

23

In so doing, officers are allowed “to draw on their own experience and specialized

24

training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information

25

available to them that ‘might well elude an untrained person.’” Id. at 273, 122 S. Ct. at

26

750-51. (citations omitted); see also Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d at 1078. Moreover, what

27

may seem to be innocuous conduct when viewed in isolation may be appropriately

28

considered when considering the totality of the circumstances; thus, it is inappropriate to

- 10 -

United

1

view factors in isolation and to give no weight to factors which may have an innocent

2

explanation. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273-75, 122 S. Ct. at 750-51; see also Cotterman, 709

3

F.3d at 970 (“It is not our province to nitpick the factors in isolation but instead to view

4

them in the totality of the circumstances.”).

5

reasonable suspicion exists . . . need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.”

6

Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d at 1078-79 (citing Arvizu, 534 at 277, 122 S. Ct. 744) (alterations

7

in original).

8

Furthermore, “A determination that

a. Officers Reed and Kozda

9

The City Defendants assert that Officers Reed and Kozda are entitled to qualified

10

immunity for their encounter with Plaintiff. Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (Doc. 50) at 5–6.

11

The Court agrees.

12

Here, TPD officers were dispatched to a shots fired or a suspect with a gun call at

13

an apartment complex near 14th Avenue and Kelso Street in the wee hours of the

14

morning. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Event Chronology—E172210112 (Exh. “3”) (Doc. 51-

15

1) at 18 & Miller Decl. (Exh. “8”) (Doc. 51-1) at ¶¶ 3, 6 & Hyde Decl. (Exh. “9”) (Doc.

16

51-1) at ¶ 3. The call details indicate that “multiple people” were heard screaming at

17

each other and a gun was mentioned. Id., Exh. “3” at 18. A male subject with a gun was

18

described as a black male, twenties, black hat, white shirt, and jeans, with a pistol in his

19

hand. Id., Exh. “3” at 18; see also Pl.’s Response re SOF (Doc. 68), Wiberg Body Worn

20

Camera Full Length Video (Exh. “2”) at 3:25–3:31. The officers parked down the street

21

and moved on foot on 14th Avenue. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Exh. “8” at ¶¶ 4, 6 & Exh.

22

“9” at ¶ 4, 6. The officers had reasonable suspicion that a crime was afoot. There were

23

no people on the street and Plaintiff was dressed in a white t-shirt and jeans. Pl.’s

24

Response re SOF (Doc. 68), Exh. “2” at 8:28–9:11

25

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has observed:

26

Under ordinary circumstances, drawing weapons and using handcuffs are
not part of a Terry stop. Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181, 1187 (9th
Cir. 1996). Nevertheless, “we allow intrusive and aggressive police
conduct without deeming it an arrest . . . when it is a reasonable response to

27
28

- 11 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

legitimate safety concerns on the part of the investigating officers.” Id. at
1186; accord Alexander v. County of Los Angeles, 64 F.3d 1315, 1320 (9th
Cir. 1990) (“it is well settled that when an officer reasonable believes force
is necessary to protect his own safety or the safety of the public, measures
used to restrain individuals, such as stopping them at gunpoint and
handcuffing them, are reasonable.”).
United States v. Miles, 247 F.3d 1009, 1012–13 (alterations in original). Plaintiff was the
first individual that the officers encountered. Officers Kozda and Reed briefly detained
him and confirmed his identity. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Beitch Depo. 11/16/2018 (Exh.
“7”) at 63:20–64:5, 91:15–92:3 & Kozda Decl. (Exh. “11”) at ¶¶ 8–10. Once this was
accomplished, Plaintiff’s belongings were returned, and he was released and free to
leave. Id., Exh. “7” at 112:1–9. The entire encounter did not last more than two (2) to
three (3) minutes. Based upon the totality of the circumstances, Officers Kozda and Reed
executed a proper Terry stop. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S. Ct.
744, 750, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). As such, Plaintiff did not suffer a violation of his
constitutional rights and Officers Kozda and Reed are entitled to qualified immunity.
b. Officers with weapons in low ready position
Plaintiff urges that “[o]fficers who had their weapons didn’t have their weapons
out didn’t’ have weapons at the low-ready position when they were approaching
Plaintiff[.]” Pl.’s Response (Doc. 67) at 16. The City Defendants assert that the body
camera video establishes that the officers did not hold Plaintiff at gunpoint. Defs.’ Mot.
Summ. J. (Doc. 50) at 6. As such, the City Defendants argue that Plaintiff bears the
burden “to demonstrate that clearly established law would prohibit officers from
conducting their sweep of his neighborhood with weapons in the low ready position.” Id.
“To determine the constitutionality of a seizure we must balance the nature and
quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the
importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.” Tennessee v.
Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 1699, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985) (quotations and
citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delineated a three-stage approach
to excessive force claims. Thompson v. Rahr, 885 F.3d 582, 586 (9th Cir. 2018). The

- 12 -

1

court of appeals counsels consideration of 1) “the severity of the intrusion . . . by

2

evaluating the type and amount of force inflicted”; 2) “the government’s interests by

3

assessing the severity of the crime[,] whether the suspect posed an immediate threat[,] . . .

4

and whether the suspect was resisting arrest or attempting to escape”; and 3) the

5

balancing of “the gravity of the intrusion on the individual against the government’s need

6

for that intrusion.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted).

7

Here, the video shows officers with their weapons pointed downward or moving to

8

point them downward as they made contact with Plaintiff. Pl.’s Response re SOF (Doc.

9

68), Wiberg Body Worn Camera Full Length Video (Exh. “2”) at 8:28–9:15; see also

10

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380–81, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686 (2007)

11

(finding facts should be viewed “in the light depicted by the videotape”). Thus, the type

12

of force used was minimal. Secondly, the officers were evaluating everyone moving

13

around at 4:30 a.m. as they were investigating a report of a disturbance involving a gun.

14

Third, the balance between the gravity of the intrusion versus the government’s need for

15

that intrusion weighs in favor of the officers. The officers contact with Plaintiff was

16

brief, he was restrained long enough to confirm his identification. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51),

17

Kozda Decl. (Exh. “11”) (Doc. 51-1) at ¶ 11. Further, responding officers who had their

18

weapons drawn, only did so as they approached Plaintiff and quickly holstered them or

19

moved off down the street. [see video] Based on the totality of the circumstances, the

20

minimal force exerted by the officers was reasonable to ensure the safety of all involved.
c. “Participating” officers

21
22

Plaintiff has sued every officer that was present during August 9, 2017 incident.

23

See Compl. (Doc. 1); Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 51), Beitch Depo. 11/16/2018 (Exh. “7”) at 36:5–

24

46:21.

25

“Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation

26

by the Defendant.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). The Ninth

27

Circuit Court of Appeals further requires that the officers can only be found “liable for

28

their ‘integral participation’ in the unlawful conduct.” Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292,

- 13 -

1

294 (9th Cir. 1996). “Being a mere bystander [is] insufficient.” Id. (citations omitted).

2

Here, Officer Kozda handcuffed Plaintiff, Officer Reed performed a Terry stop

3

and frisk, Officers Miller and Hyde had guns out in the low ready position, and Officer

4

Miranda issued the verbal commands to Beitch to step out of the car, shut the door, and

5

put his hands on the hood. Defs.’ SOF (Doc. 50), Miller Decl. (Exh. “8”) at ¶ 5 & Hyde

6

Decl. (Exh. “9”) at ¶ 5 & Kozda Decl. (Exh. “11”) ¶¶ 8–11; Pl.’s Response re SOF (Doc.

7

68), Wiberg Body Worn Camera Full Length Video (Exh. “2”) at 8:53–9:04. Plaintiff

8

has failed to present any evidence to suggest that Officers Wiberg, Rodriguez, and

9

Gutierrez or Sergeant Hill were personally involved with any aspect of his detainment.

10

As such, they cannot be said to be “integral participants” of any alleged constitutional

11

violation and are entitled to qualified immunity.

12

d. Sergeant David Hill and Chief Chris Magnus

13

The language of § 1983 “cannot be easily read to impose liability vicariously on

14

governing bodies solely on the basis of the existence of an employer-employee

15

relationship with a tortfeasor.” Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Services of City of N.Y., 436 U.S.

16

658, 692, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2036, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978). As such, the Supreme Court of

17

the United States “concluded that § 1983 could not be interpreted to incorporate doctrines

18

of vicarious liability.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479, 106 S. Ct.

19

1292, 1298, 89 L. Ed. 2d 452 (1986).

20

constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed

21

the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List,

22

880 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1989). The burden is on Plaintiff to “allege facts, no simply

23

conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of

24

his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).

Thus, “[a] supervisor is only liable for

25

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to support a finding that either Sergeant

26

Hill or Chief Magnus were personally involved in any alleged deprivation of his civil

27

rights. Sergeant Hill did not arrive on scene until the end of the officer’s encounter with

28

Plaintiff and there is no allegation that Chief Magnus was personally involved. Defs.’

- 14 -

1

SOF (Doc. 51), Beitch Depo. 11/16/2018 (Exh. “7”) at 24:24–28:23 & Hill Decl. (Exh.

2

“12”) at ¶ 8. Therefore, regarding any Fourth Amendment violation, Plaintiff has failed

3

to state a claim against Sergeant Hill and Chief Magnus.

4

3. Due Process

5

Plaintiff asserts a violation of his procedural due process rights against the TPD

6

officers. Pl.’s Response to Mot. to Strike (Doc. 71) at 6. Plaintiff alleges that he did not

7

receive a fair administrative hearing; however, he has failed to delineate what process

8

was due or how Chief Chris Magnus, Captain Justin Lane, or Sergeant Mickey Petersen

9

violated these rights. Plaintiff’s complaint was received, reviewed and investigated by

10

Sergeant Petersen who was independent of the officers involved, and these results were

11

reviewed and concurred with by his superior officers, as well as with Plaintiff. Defs.’

12

SOF (Doc. 51), Petersen Decl. (Exh. “13”) at ¶¶ 4–11. Ultimately, Plaintiff disagreed

13

with the outcome of their analysis. The violations of TPD’s policy regarding report

14

writing and failing to turn on a body worn camera are not constitutional violations.

15

Moreover, to the extent that such nebulous due process rights are coextensive with

16

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, the officers did not violate a “clearly established”

17

law and are entitled to qualified immunity.

18
19

IV.

CONCLUSION

20

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his

21

burden in opposing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, IT IS

22

HEREBY ORDERED that:

23
24
25

1)

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Leave to Allow Non-Electronic Filing of

Exhibit #2 (Doc. 66) is GRANTED in part and DENIED AS MOOT in part;
2)

The City Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff Aaron Beitch [sic]

26

Response to Defendants Opposition to Strike Plaintiff Motion of Facts in Support of

27

Plaintiff [sic] Opposition to Summary of Judgment Doc. 71 (Doc. 72) is DENIED;

28

3)

The City Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50) is

- 15 -

1

GRANTED; and

2

4)

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the case.

3
4

Dated this 1st day of June, 2020.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 16 -