Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04328/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04328-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF ANDREW WAHNEE MOPPINBUCKSKIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants. 

AND RELATED COUNTER- AND CROSS-CLAIMS

____________________________________/

No. C 08-04328 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This is an excessive force civil rights case arising from the

tragic death of twenty-year-old Andrew Wahnee Moppin-Buckskin at

the hands of Oakland police officers. Plaintiffs Estate of Andrew

Wahnee Moppin-Buckskin, Sonja Wahnee Moppin, Michael Moppin, and

minors A.M.B. and A.W.M.B. have sued Defendants City of Oakland and

Oakland Police Officers Hector Jimenez, J. Borello and Barry Hofman

in their individual and official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

In this summary judgment motion, Defendants argue that there are no

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

triable issues of material fact and that they are entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The

matter was heard on December 10, 2009. Having considered oral

argument and all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court

grants Defendants’ motion. 

BACKGROUND

On December 31, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. Oakland Police Officers

Keith Souza and Jason Mitchell pulled Mr. Moppin over near 46th 

Avenue and International Boulevard in Oakland for failing to stop

completely at a stop sign. After the car stopped, Mr. Moppin and

two passengers exited the car. Mr. Moppin then fled on foot. 

Sergeant Barry Hofman responded to the scene of the initial car

stop and began looking for Mr. Moppin by driving around the

neighborhood. 

While driving southbound on 47th Avenue, Sgt. Hofman found Mr.

Moppin hiding underneath a parked Ford Explorer. Hofman Dep. at

61-62. Sgt. Hofman then notified dispatch that he located Mr.

Moppin. Sgt. Hofman reversed his car and kept a distance of about

ninety feet between himself and Mr. Moppin. Hofman Dep. at 64. He

backed away so that he could call additional officers for help and

so as not to force Mr. Moppin to act. Hofman Dep. at 63. Officers

Hector Jimenez and Jessica Borello arrived by patrol car at the

scene from the south and saw Sgt. Hofman in his patrol car. Sgt.

Hofman then turned his patrol car’s spotlight on the Explorer to

notify Officers Jimenez and Borello of Mr. Moppin’s location. 

Hofman Dep. at 65. Once Officer Borello directed her spotlight on

the car, she saw Mr. Moppin crouched down, between the car and an

adjacent fence, with his hands between his legs. Officers Jimenez

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

According to Officer Jimenez, the contact ready position is

when “you have your strong hand on the grip, you have the weak hand

covering so the recoil won’t push the weapon in that direction. 

You have -- your feet staggered, so you have your left foot a

little more ahead than your right foot; knees are bent, your back

is crouched, your arms are extended out.” Jimenez Dep. at 84. The

trigger finger is along “the slide of the weapon.” Id. at 85.

2Officer Borello similarly testified that Mr. Moppin stated,

“What the fuck. I’m taking a shit.” Borello Dep. at 59. 

3

and Borello stopped their patrol car about seven to ten feet south

of Mr. Moppin and the Explorer. Jimenez Dep. at 65. They got out

of their patrol car with their guns drawn in the “contact ready”

position, pointed at Mr. Moppin.1

 Officers Jimenez and Borello

repeatedly ordered Mr. Moppin to stand up and put his hands up. At

this point, Mr. Moppin was about ten feet away from the Officers

Jimenez and Borello, but he did not comply with their commands and

they could not see his hands. 

While still in the crouched position, Mr. Moppin said, “What?

I haven’t done anything wrong. I’m just back here taking a shit.” 

Hofman Dep., 87-88.2 Officer Jimenez responded, “[N]o you’re not

‘cause I see your pants are up.” Jimenez Dep. at 129. After

several seconds, Mr. Moppin stood up and slowly raised his hands up

near his ears, palms open and facing Officers Jimenez and Borello. 

Borello Dep. at 59; Jimenez Dep. at 78. 

At this point, Mr. Moppin was standing in a narrow area,

approximately three feet wide, between the Explorer and the fence. 

Hofman Dep. at 86. He was standing near the rear-passenger door of

the Explorer. Hofman Dep. at 86. Officer Jimenez gave several

more commands to Mr. Moppin to step closer to the officers because

they did not want to be trapped between the wall and the car. Mr.

Moppin did not move forward. Instead, Mr. Moppin cursed at the

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 3 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

officers, “What the fuck did I do?” Officer Jimenez then said, “If

you don’t walk toward me, I’m going to shoot you.” Jimenez Dep. at

80. Officer Jimenez made this threat “hopefully to scare him to

walk towards me so we could take him into custody.” Id. at 81. 

Mr. Moppin responded, “I don’t give a fuck if you shoot me, I’ve

been shot before.” Borello Dep. at 63; Jimenez Dep. at 82. 

Officer Borello testified that Mr. Moppin’s hands were up for

five seconds. Borello Dep. at 63. Then, according to Officer

Borello, Mr. Moppin took one step towards Officers Jimenez and

Borello and, with his right hand, he reached towards his back

waistband and turned his body to his right, slightly away from

Officers Jimenez and Borello. Borello Dep. at 65. According to

Officer Jimenez, Mr. Moppin did not move towards the officers and

did not turn his body when he reached for the small of his back. 

Jimenez Dep. at 83-86. As Mr. Moppin was lowering his right hand,

Officer Borello screamed, “Let me see your hands, let me see your

hands.” Borello Dep. at 66. Once, Mr. Moppin’s right hand

disappeared behind his back, both Officers Jimenez and Borello

fired their weapons. Borello Dep. at 65-67; Jimenez Dep. at 82-87. 

Officer Borello testified that Officer Jimenez fired his

weapon before she fired hers because, at the time that Mr. Moppin

reached towards his waist, she was getting ready to holster her

weapon in order to handcuff him. Borello Dep. at 67. Officer

Jimenez fired between three and four shots and Officer Borello

fired one shot. Jimenez Dep. at 89; Borello Dep. at 68. Both

officers testified that they believed Mr. Moppin was reaching for a

weapon and that their lives were in danger. Jimenez Dep. at 86,

130; Borello Dep. at 61-62. 

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 4 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

By the time of the shooting, Sgt. Hofman had exited his car

and had moved to within ten to twelve feet of Mr. Moppin. Hofman

Dep. at 77-84. Sgt. Hofman approached the scene from the north and

was crouching by the front passenger fender of the Explorer at the

time of the shooting. Hofman Dep. 85-87. Mr. Moppin’s back was

facing Sgt. Hofman throughout the incident. Hofman Dep. at 85-87. 

He could see Mr. Moppin clearly but his view of Officers Jimenez

and Borillo was obstructed by the Explorer. Hofman Dep. at 85-87,

104. Sgt. Hofman testified that Mr. Moppin’s hands were up for

“less than a second.” Hofman Dep. at 89-90. According to Sgt.

Hofman, once Mr. Moppin dropped his hands, Mr. Moppin said

“something akin of, ‘Fuck you, I didn’t do anything.’” Hofman Dep.

at 90-91. Sgt. Hofman then said to Mr. Moppin, “Dude, get your

hands up.” Hofman Dep. at 109-111. A “few seconds” later, Mr.

Moppin turned “maybe ninety degrees” counter-clockwise and reached

with his right hand into his right front pocket. Hofman Dep. at

99-100, 112. Later in Sgt. Hofman’s deposition, he changed his

testimony and said that Mr. Moppin “must have turned clockwise,

towards his right” because he saw Mr. Moppin’s right hand as it

entered the right front pocket. Hofman Dep. at 134. While

observing Mr. Moppin reach for his pocket, Sgt. Hofman yelled,

“He’s reaching.” Hofman Dep. at 105. At the same time, Officers

Jimenez and Borello fired their guns. Hofman Dep. at 105. Sgt.

Hofman claimed that he did not have his gun drawn, but that if he

had, he would also have shot Mr. Moppin. Hofman Dep. at 134. 

Officer Thomas Doan was also at the scene of the shooting. He

arrived after Sgt. Hofman and Officers Jimenez and Borello, but

before the shots were fired. Officer Doan parked his car near Sgt.

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 5 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3At another point in Officer Doan’s deposition, he testified

that he was twelve to fifteen feet from the Explorer at the time of

the shooting. Doan Dep. at 53. 

6

Hofman’s and approached the Explorer from the north. At the time

of the shooting, Officer Doan was about five feet from the middle

of the driver’s side door of the Explorer. Doan Dep. at 75.3 At

all times, his view of Mr. Moppin was obstructed by the Explorer. 

Doan Dep. at 50. Because of the position of the Explorer, Officer

Doan could only see Mr. Moppin’s head through the Explorer’s

windows. But, “other than that, I couldn’t see him at all.” Doan

Dep. at 50. Officer Doan stated that he did not fire his own

weapon because he “couldn’t see anything that would make me, you

know, want to have to defend myself.” Doan Dep. at 81. 

After Officers Jimenez and Borello shot Mr. Moppin, Mr. Moppin

fell to the ground and crawled under the Explorer. Hofman Dep. at

115. Officer Jimenez handcuffed Mr. Moppin and Sgt. Hofman checked

him for vital signs and saw that he was conscious and breathing. 

Jimenez Dep. at 98, 100; Hofman Dep. at 117. Officer Borello

searched Mr. Moppin’s waistband but did not find a weapon. Borello

Dep. at 75. Mr. Moppin died later that evening. 

On July 25, 2008 the Executive Force Review Board of the

Oakland Police Department concluded that the shots fired by

Officers Borello and Jimenez were reasonable and within

Departmental use of force policy. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and

disputed issues of material fact remain, and when, viewing the

evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 6 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);

Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir.

1987).

The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no

material factual dispute. Therefore, the court must regard as true

the opposing party's evidence, if supported by affidavits or other

evidentiary material. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Eisenberg, 815

F.2d at 1289. The court must draw all reasonable inferences in

favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

587 (1986); Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d

1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Material facts which would preclude entry of summary judgment

are those which, under applicable substantive law, may affect the

outcome of the case. The substantive law will identify which facts

are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986).

DISCUSSION

I. Individual Liability Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Plaintiffs’ case hinges on whether Officers Jimenez’s and

Borello’s use of lethal force was reasonable under the

circumstances after drawing all inferences in favor of Plaintiffs. 

The Court concludes that it was.

Claims of excessive force which arise in the context of an

arrest, investigative stop or other seizure of a person are

analyzed under a reasonableness standard. Graham v. Connor, 490

U.S. 386, 395 (1989). The use of deadly force is a seizure subject

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 7 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

8

to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. 

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7 (1985).

The question in an excessive use of force claim is “whether

the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the

facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their

underlying intent or motivation.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 397. 

Determining whether use of force is reasonable “requires a careful

balancing of ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the

individual’s Fourth Amendment interests’ against the countervailing

governmental interests at stake.” Id. at 396 (quoting in part

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703 (1983)). Reasonableness

“must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the

scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. The

calculus “must embody allowance for the fact that police officers

are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances

that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount

of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id. at 396-

97. 

An officer’s use of lethal force is reasonable if “the officer

has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant

threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or

others.” Garner, 471 U.S. at 3. The Ninth Circuit has recognized

that deadly force cases “pose a particularly difficult problem

under this regime because the officer defendant is often the only

surviving eyewitness.” Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 915 (9th

Cir. 1992). Thus, the court “must ensure that the officer is not

taking advantage of the fact that the witness most likely to

contradict his story -- the person shot dead -- is unable to

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 8 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9

testify. The judge must carefully examine all the evidence in the

record, such as medical reports, contemporaneous statements by the

officer and the available physical evidence, as well as any expert

testimony proffered by the plaintiff, to determine whether the

officer's story is internally consistent and consistent with other

known facts.” Id.

Here, the undisputed evidence shows that Officers Jimenez and

Borello acted reasonably when they used deadly force against Mr.

Moppin. When Officers Jimenez and Borello encountered Mr. Moppin,

they knew that he had recently fled from the scene of a traffic

stop. Officers are taught this may be a sign that a suspect could

be armed or may have committed an offense more serious than a

traffic violation. Falfine Dep. at 14. Once found by police

officers, Mr. Moppin failed to obey their commands. Initially, he

refused to stand up and raise his hands and throughout the incident

he was verbally combative. The officers shot Mr. Moppin only after

he failed to come toward them, as ordered, dropped his hands and

then made a movement toward his waist area as though reaching for a

weapon. All three officers who could see Mr. Moppin unequivocally 

thought that he was reaching for a gun and feared for their safety. 

Therefore, in this case, the test for objective reasonableness is

met. 

Plaintiffs argue that Officer Doan’s testimony creates a

triable issue of material fact. However, nothing in Officer Doan’s

account of the events contradicts those of Officers Jimenez,

Borello or Sgt. Hofman. Plaintiffs make much of the fact that,

throughout the entire incident, Officer Doan did not see Mr. Moppin

reach to his waistband and that he “couldn’t see anything that

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 9 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

10

would make me, you know, want to have to defend myself.” Doan Dep.

at 81. However, this is not surprising because Officer Doan’s view

of Mr. Moppin was obstructed by the Explorer. His vision was

limited to what he could see through the Explorer’s windows only. 

Thus, Officer Doan could only see Mr. Moppin’s face and not the

rest of his body. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ attempt to use Officer

Doan’s testimony to attack the objective reasonableness of the

officers’ response fails. 

Plaintiffs’ assertions that Mr. Moppin was cooperative and

unthreatening is also unsupported by the record. Upon first

approaching Mr. Moppin, Officers Jimenez and Borello repeatedly

commanded that he stand up and show his hands. Mr. Moppin was slow

to follow these commands, and when he finally did raise his hands,

he only kept them up for a few seconds at the most. Further, Mr.

Moppin verbally challenged the officers throughout the incident. 

To support their assertion that Mr. Moppin was compliant,

Plaintiffs rely on the testimony of Lennart Persson. Persson was

seated in his parked truck and viewed the incident through his

driver’s side rear-view mirror. He never saw Mr. Moppin at any

point during the incident and he primarily heard the events from

his left ear, which is his “bad ear;” he can only hear seventy to

eighty percent of normal out of that ear. Further, the parties do

not state how far Mr. Persson was from the scene of the shooting. 

Thus, his testimony does not create a triable issue of a material

fact.

Plaintiffs also argue that Officers Jimenez and Borello and

Sgt. Hofman testified inconsistently about the nature of Mr.

Moppin’s movement which prompted the shooting. Primarily,

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 10 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

11

Plaintiffs take issue with the inconsistency between Officers

Jimenez’s and Borello’s testimony that Mr. Moppin reached towards

his back waistband with his right hand and Sgt. Hofman’s testimony

that Mr. Moppin reached for his front right pocket with his right

hand. However, considering that Sgt. Hofman viewed the incident

from behind Mr. Moppin whereas Officers Jimenez and Borello were

facing him, these statements are not inconsistent. Mr. Moppin

turned toward Sgt. Hofman’s position, and, in that split-second

when his right hand went out of Officers Jimenez’s and Borello’s

sight, it came into Sgt. Hofman’s view. Thus, where Officers

Jimenez and Borello inferred the destination of Mr. Moppin’s hand

once it went out of view, Sgt. Hofman could see it directly. All

three officers testified that Mr. Moppin lowered his hands and

suddenly reached down and towards the right of his pants. In the

course of this split-second movement, the substantive difference

between Mr. Moppin’s right front pocket and rear waistband is

immaterial. 

Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Moppin was turning to his right in

response to something Sgt. Hofman said to him and not as part of a

reaching motion towards his pants. However, responding to Sgt.

Hofman did not require Mr. Moppin to put his hands down and reach

for his waistband with two armed officers in front of him

repeatedly ordering him to keep his hands up. Further, Plaintiffs’

arguments that the officers gave inconsistent commands is not

supported by the record. Although more than one officer was

speaking to Mr. Moppin at a time, they were all commanding him to

do the same things -- to keep his hands up and in view.

Plaintiffs lastly assert that Defendants’ version of the

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 11 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4To the extent that the Court relied upon evidence to which

the parties objected, the objections are overruled. The Court did

not rely on any inadmissible evidence in reaching its decision. To

the extent the Court did not rely on evidence to which the parties

objected, the objections are overruled as moot.

12

events could not have happened as they recount in the short time

span that the incident actually occurred. The audio dispatch

report shows that only twelve seconds elapsed from when Officer

Borello announced that she was “on scene” and the announcement of

shots fired. Chanin Decl., Exh. 18. Plaintiffs argue that twelve

seconds is not sufficient time for Officers Borello and Jimenez to

observe enough of the situation to use deadly force reasonably

against Mr. Moppin. Plaintiffs assert, therefore, that Defendants’

recollection of the events is, at best, inaccurate, or, at worst,

fabricated. 

Defendants claim that the recording Plaintiffs rely on does

not represent the real time occurrence of the events because

unrelated incidents and gaps resulting from radio silence were

deleted from the recording. Cota Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. Plaintiffs dispute

this assertion. However, even if the recording accurately

represents that twelve seconds elapsed from when Officer Borello

arrived on the scene until she shot Mr. Moppin, this does not

render her use of force unreasonable. There is nothing

inconsistent between the twelve second time frame and Defendants’

testimony. The unfortunate reality of Mr. Moppin’s death is that

it represents an example of how a sudden furtive movement in

defiance of an officer’s order can reasonably precipitate an

officer’s use of lethal force.4

In sum, Mr. Moppin’s belligerent behavior, reluctance to

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 12 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5For the same reasons, Plaintiffs’ state wrongful death claims

also fail. 

13

comply with commands, the lowering of his hands and reaching

towards his waistband and his statement that he didn’t “give a

fuck” if the officers shot him because he had been shot before,

would lead a reasonable officer to believe he was reaching for a

weapon. Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment for

Defendants on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against the individual

officers.5

 

II. Municipal Liability Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

The City of Oakland cannot be liable under § 1983 because

there has been no violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. 

City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (“If a

person has suffered no constitutional injury at the hands of the

individual officer, the fact that the departmental regulations

might have authorized [the constitutional violation] is quite

beside the point.”); Quintanilla v. City of Downey, 84 F.3d 353,

355 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Thus, an individual may recover under § 1983

only when his federal rights have been violated.”). 

However, even if Plaintiffs could prove a violation of their

constitutional rights, they have not shown that their injuries were

caused by an official policy of the City of Oakland, as required

under Monell v. New York Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.

658, 694 (1978). 

Plaintiffs argue that Oakland’s failure adequately to train

its officers caused Mr. Moppin’s death. In the failure to train

context, “evidence of a single violation of federal rights,

accompanied by showing that a municipality has failed to train its

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 13 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

14

employees to handle recurring situations presenting an obvious

potential for such a violation, could trigger municipal liability.” 

Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County, Oklahoma v. Brown,

520 U.S. 397, 409 (1997). The Supreme Court has noted “in a narrow

range of circumstances, that a violation of federal rights may be a

highly predictable consequence of a failure to equip law

enforcement officers with specific tools to handle recurring

situations.” Id. at 410. This involves circumstances in which

such a violation of a federal right was the “plainly obvious

consequence” of a “particular glaring omission in a training

regimen.” Id.

Here, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of any

deficiencies within Oakland Police Department’s training regimen or

a failure to train regarding recurring situations. Plaintiffs

focus on the fact that the Executive Force Review Board identified

a few issues that required more training regarding (1) cover,

(2) use of flashlights and (3) Sgt. Hofman’s inability to fire at

the suspect because his gun was holstered and his failure to take

control of the scene. However, these recommendations were given

after the shooting incident and, therefore, do not pertain to the

adequacy of the officers’ training before the incident. Moreover,

the Board concluded that the officers’ conduct was reasonable and

did not violate the Department’s use of force policy, which was

itself constitutional. In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to

demonstrate any link between a municipal policy or custom and the

alleged constitutional deprivations. Therefore, the Court grants

summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs’ Monell claim.

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 14 of 15
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

15

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’

summary judgment motion (Docket No. 35). The clerk shall enter

judgment for Defendants and the parties shall bear their own costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/12/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-04328-CW Document 72 Filed 01/12/10 Page 15 of 15