Tamrat v. Mercardo

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ordered service of Herman Tamrat’s pro se civil-rights complaint against Sergeant Kunaboot, Deputy Mercado, and Doe defendants. The court found cognizable claims involving excessive force, deliberate indifference, failure to intervene, bodily privacy, civil-rights conspiracy, negligence, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Bane Act, and claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The court dismissed the section 1986 claim without prejudice and denied motions for injunctive relief and to stay the case.

Holdings

1. The complaint, liberally construed, stated cognizable claims sufficient to proceed past preliminary screening on the claims identified in the order.
2. The complaint stated cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claims against Kunaboot for failure to intervene, deliberate indifference, and bodily privacy, and against Mercado for excessive force and deliberate indifference; it also stated a cognizable Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment bodily-privacy claim against Kunaboot.
3. The complaint stated a cognizable § 1985 conspiracy claim against Kunaboot and Mercado.
4. The § 1986 claim was dismissed without prejudice because Tamrat did not allege a defendant who knew of the § 1985 conspiracy, had power to prevent it, and failed to do so.
5. The complaint stated cognizable Title II ADA and § 504 Rehabilitation Act claims against the defendants in their official capacities.
6. The complaint stated cognizable California claims for negligence or gross negligence against the named defendants, assault and battery against Mercado, intentional infliction of emotional distress against both named defendants, and a Bane Act claim against both named defendants.
7. The motion for injunctive relief was denied.
8. The motion to stay was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated cognizable Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims concerning excessive force, failure to intervene, deliberate indifference, and bodily privacy.
2. Whether the allegations stated claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986.
3. Whether the complaint stated claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
4. Whether the complaint stated the asserted California negligence, assault, battery, intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress, and Bane Act claims.
5. Whether injunctive relief was warranted and whether the case should be stayed.

Disposition

other