Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02916/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02916-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZENITH FREEDMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHERIFF’S OFFICER TONG, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02916 CRB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Zenith Freedman alleges that she was mistreated by an officer of the San

Francisco Sheriff’s Department when she was in a waiting room at San Francisco General

Hospital, and then mistreated again at the San Francisco County jail. Her complaint sets

forth three causes of action against the arresting officer (“DefendantTong”), as well as

against the hospital’s chief executive officer (“Defendant O’Connell”).

The case was originally filed in San Francisco County Superior Court. Defendants

removed the case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Shortly after

removal, a discovery dispute arose in which Plaintiff declined to provide certain materials to

Defendants. Due in part to these discovery difficulties, Plaintiff’s attorney withdrew from

the case at a hearing before the Court in November of 2006. Plaintiff has been pursing the

case pro se since that time.

//

Case 3:06-cv-02916-CRB Document 55 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff filed no opposition and failed to appear before the Court at a hearing on the motion. 

Based upon the evidence presented by Defendant in the motion for summary judgment, the

Court agrees that Plaintiff cannot prevail on any of her claims. 

As to the claims against the chief executive officer of the hospital, there is no

indication in the complaint or in the record that there was any failure on the hospital’s part to

“supervise” what went on in the emergency waiting room, where the incident between

Plaintiff and Defendant Tong took place. There is no indication that hospital personnel even

witnessed what went on in the waiting room during the brief encounter between Plaintiff and

Defendant Tong, much less that such personnel had authority to supervise Defendant Tong or

breached some duty to Plaintiff in failing to do so. Because Defendant’s motion indicates

that Plaintiff “does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry [her] ultimate

burden of persuasion at trial” on the issue of the hospital’s failure to supervise, it was

Plaintiff’s obligation to “produce evidence to support [her] claim.” Nissan Fire & Marine

Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.2000) (citing High Tech Gays v. Def.

Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563, 574 (9th Cir.1990)). Plaintiff has presented no

such evidence. In fact, she has presented no evidence at all. Accordingly, summary

judgment as to Defendant O’Connell is GRANTED.

As to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Tong, the only conduct allegedly giving rise

to liability is the fact that Defendant Tong forcibly moved Plaintiff when she was interfering

with his attempt to escort an apparently homeless woman from the waiting room, and that

Plaintiff was subsequently placed under arrest for this interference. The evidence submitted

in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and in particular Plaintiff’s own

testimony at deposition, indicates that Defendant Tong did not use an objectively

unreasonable amount of force in moving Plaintiff away from him. Nor is there any basis for

this Court to find that Plaintiff’s subsequent arrest was made without probable cause for

believing that her interference with Defendant Tong’s duties was a crime. Further, even if

the evidence could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that Defendant Tong did commit a

Case 3:06-cv-02916-CRB Document 55 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 3
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

G:\CRBALL\2006\2916\order3.wpd 3

constitutional violation, the record now before the Court (as well as the apparently unsettled

state of California law on the issue of whether a peace officer may arrest a subject for verbal

interference with an arrest) compels the conclusion that he would be entitled to qualified

immunity for his actions. Accordingly, summary judgment as to Defendant Tong is therefore

GRANTED.

Finally, as to any of the events that may or may not have transpired at the San

Francisco County jail, there is no evidence that any of the named Defendants were involved. 

The circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s confinement, therefore, do not provide any basis

for defeating the pending summary judgment motion. For all of these reasons, Defendants’

motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02916-CRB Document 55 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 3