Estate of Glenn Swindell et al v. County of Sonoma

Filing 92

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 87 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/21/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ESTATE OF GLENN SWINDELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-00897-SI

v.
COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 87

12
13

On August 18, 2017, the Court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary

14

judgment. Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on their first and fourth causes of action

15

against defendants Buchignani and Scanlon.

16

plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by securing an arrest warrant and a search

17

warrant through an affidavit that contained false statements and omissions. Plaintiffs’ motion

18

refers to these claims as their “judicial deception claims.”

Plaintiffs argue that these defendants violated

19

“To support a § 1983 claim of judicial deception, a plaintiff must show that the defendant

20

deliberately or recklessly made false statements or omissions that were material to the finding of

21

probable cause.” KRL v. Moore, 384 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs contend that

22

Deputy Buchignani’s affidavit, which included information from Sergeant Scanlon, falsely stated,

23

inter alia, that Glenn Swindell had used profanity with his wife and that Glenn had ranted at his

24

wife outside the car before he went inside the house. Plaintiffs argue that the declaration of

25

Deputy Mahoney shows that these statements are false because Mahoney’s declaration is

26

inconsistent with Buchignani’s affidavit. Plaintiffs argue that these statements were material to a

27

finding of probable cause for the felony charge of false imprisonment, and that the felony charge

28

was essential to obtaining the warrants in the middle of the night.

1

Defendants contend that plaintiffs have not met their burden on summary judgment and

2

that there are numerous disputes of fact. Defendants also argue that plaintiffs are engaging in a

3

“hypertechnical” analysis of Buchignani’s affidavit, and that plaintiffs have mischaracterized the

4

evidence, including taking Buchignani’s testimony out of context.

5

The Court finds that on this record, summary judgment is not appropriate. There are

6

disputes of fact regarding whether Buchignani and Scanlon deliberately or recklessly made false

7

statements or omissions when preparing the warrant affidavit. “Credibility determinations, the

8

weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury

9

functions, not those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for summary judgment . . . .” Anderson v.
The Court further notes that Mahoney’s

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

declaration states that Glenn used profanity with his wife, Mahoney Decl. ¶ 7, and the information

12

he provided about the incident is not necessarily inconsistent with Buchignani’s statement that

13

Glenn ranted at his wife outside the car. Id. at ¶ 13.

14

motion for partial summary judgment.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: August 21, 2017

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2