Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-01884/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-01884-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

 The Circuit Court noted that Plaintiff claimed the officers “threw” her onto a couch after she

was “already handcuffed.”

- 1 - 03cv1884

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUDY FAYE COGGINS RAY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 03cv1884 DMS (BLM)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Docket No. 57]

vs.

MATTHEW TSUNODA, SAN DIEGO

POLICE OFFICER DAVIS, JUAN

ESTRADA, the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,

and DOES 1-30, inclusive,

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff

has filed an opposition to the motion. Defendants did not file a reply. The motion came on for

hearing on February 29, 2008. Plaintiff appeared on her own behalf, and Messrs. Madsen and

Miesfeld appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

The present motion raises the issue whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from

Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force. Defendants raised this issue in a previous motion for summary

judgment, which the Court granted. On appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court’s

decision based on its conclusion that Plaintiff “raised a triable issue as to whether defendants’ use of

force amounted to a constitutional violation[.]”1

 In light of that conclusion, the Ninth Circuit

Case 3:03-cv-01884-DMS-BLM Document 66 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 2
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 - 03cv1884

remanded the case to this Court to “reconsider whether a reasonable officer would have known such

actions were unconstitutional.” 

Defendants argue that a reasonable officer faced with the situation presented here would not

have known that his actions were unconstitutional. According to Plaintiff, however, the officers used

excessive force in detaining Plaintiff as her dogs were locked in a bedroom when the officers entered

her residence, and she was not interfering with their execution of the warrant. (See Pl.’s Mot. at 10.)

Assuming these facts are true, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether a reasonable officer would

have known that his actions, i.e., throwing Plaintiff onto a couch after she already had been

handcuffed, were unreasonable. Therefore, Defendants are not entitled at this stage of the proceedings

to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s excessive force claim. Triable questions of fact remain that

must be addressed by the jury before the Court can determine whether Defendants are entitled to

qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claim.

For these reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is respectfully denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 5, 2008

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-01884-DMS-BLM Document 66 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 2