Neuroth et al v. Mendocino County et al

Filing 365

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg denying 352 Motion for Leave to File; denying 353 Motion for Leave to File. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
JAMES NEUROTH,

10

Case No. 15-cv-03226-RS

Plaintiff,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER DENYING
RECONSIDERATION

12
MENDOCINO COUNTY, et al.,

13

Defendants.
14
15
Defendants County of Mendocino and Deputy Robert Page have each filed motions for

16
17

leave to seek reconsideration of portions of the order granting in part and denying in part summary

18

judgment. Without prejudice to determining whether the threshold requirements for

19

reconsideration were satisfied, an order issued directing plaintiff to respond. Upon review of the

20

briefing, reconsideration will be denied.

21
22

Deputy Page

23

Defendant Deputy Robert Page seeks reconsideration of that portion of the order denying

24

him summary judgment of the excessive force claim. Page contends that the order erroneously

25

lumped his conduct with that of the other deputies involved in restraining the decedent after he had

26

been moved to the safety cell.1 Page insists the record shows that he personally never applied any

27
28

1

The order granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Leef and Deputy Holum on the

1

“downward pressure on the critical parts” of the decedent’s body so as to impair his breathing, and

2

that his conduct cannot be characterized as a “prolonged” use of force. To the extent defendants’

3

briefing in support of the underlying summary judgment motion failed to articulate a basis for

4

distinguishing Page from the other deputies involved in the use of force, reconsideration is not

5

appropriate. See Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(1)(Where a party requests reconsideration based on facts

6

or law not previously presented, “[t]he party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable

7

diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the

8

interlocutory order.”)
To the extent the defendants’ prior briefing could be construed as including argument for

9

distinguishing Page’s conduct from that of other deputies, reconsideration is still not warranted.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

The order found there to be questions of fact surrounding “how much weight [the decedent] had

12

on his body and where at any one time. Even assuming no critical pressure obstructing breathing

13

was applied directly by Page, he was participating in restraining the decedent when such pressure

14

is alleged to have led to the death. While the trier of fact will ultimately determine the liability of

15

each defendant, if any, the record does not permit a conclusion at this stage that Page must be

16

absolved from participation in any unlawful use of force.2

17

Page further argues the order erroneously applied the standards of Drummond ex rel.

18

Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F. 3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) instead of Kingsley v. Hendrickson,

19

135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), and/or that to the extent Drummond might otherwise generally be

20

applicable in circumstances like these, it is distinguishable and does not support the result of the

21

order. The order specifically addressed Kingsley, and its relationship to Graham v. Connor, 490

22

U.S. 386, 397 (1989), which was applied in Drummond. That Page disagrees with the legal

23
24
25
26
27

excessive force claim because the evidence showed neither of them ever entered the safety cell.
2

For similar reasons, Page is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds
regarding his use of a “figure four compliance hold.” Even assuming use of such a hold does not
in and of itself constitute excessive force where there is a basis physically to restrain a person in
custody, that would not preclude liability if one law enforcement officer restrains an inmate while
another engages in excessive force.

28

CASE NO.

2

15-cv-03226-RS

1

analysis is not a basis for reconsideration.

2
3

County of Mendocino

4

The County of Mendocino seeks reconsideration of the order’s conclusion that it has

5

potential Monell liability where “a violation of federal rights may be a highly predictable

6

consequence of a failure to equip law enforcement officers with specific tools to handle recurring

7

situations.” Long v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006)(quoting Board of

8

County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 409 (1997). Again, defendant’s mere

9

disagreement with the order’s legal and factual analysis does not support reconsideration.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: December 4, 2018
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO.

3

15-cv-03226-RS