A.L., by and through his guardian ad litem, Jenae Lewis v. City of Bakersfield, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment in an action arising from the pursuit, arrest, and alleged use of excessive force against a juvenile plaintiff. The court held that the municipal excessive-force claims failed because municipalities are not vicariously liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that the individual defendants other than Officer Heinsohn were entitled to qualified immunity on the claims addressed. The order also discusses municipal liability, failure to train, failure to intervene, and related state-law claims.

Holdings

1. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity because A.L. failed to identify controlling authority or a robust consensus of persuasive authority that clearly established the unlawfulness of their specific conduct under the circumstances presented.
2. Officers Hearn, Orozco, Chavez, and Droege were entitled to qualified immunity on the failure-to-intervene claim because A.L. failed to identify authority clearly establishing that they had a duty to intervene during the approximately seven seconds in which Heinsohn delivered the challenged strikes.
3. The City of Bakersfield and the individual defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the municipal-liability claims because A.L. failed to present evidence of an unconstitutional policy, custom, practice, or failure-to-train policy, and municipal liability cannot be imposed on individual defendants.
4. A.L. abandoned his battery, negligence, and Bane Act claims against defendants other than Heinsohn by failing to oppose summary judgment on those claims, and summary judgment was properly entered on those claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Officers Hearn, Orozco, Chavez, and Droege were entitled to qualified immunity on A.L.'s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims.
2. Whether Officers Hearn, Orozco, Chavez, and Droege were entitled to qualified immunity on A.L.'s failure-to-intervene claims based on Heinsohn's approximately seven seconds of strikes.
3. Whether the City of Bakersfield and the individual defendants could be held liable under § 1983 for an unconstitutional municipal policy, custom, practice, or failure to train.
4. Whether A.L. abandoned his battery, negligence, and California Bane Act claims by failing to oppose summary judgment on those claims.

Disposition

other