Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00584/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00584-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

Case No. 14-cv-00584 NC

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EDWARD HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSHUA ESPINOZA and PHILLIP 

FRENKEL,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00584 NC

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF

DEFENDANT OFFICERS FRENKEL

AND ESPINOZA

Re: Dkt. No. 97

Plaintiff James Edward Holmes alleges that San Francisco Police Officers Joshua 

Espinoza and Phillip Frenkel used excessive force against him while investigating a 

shooting on February 23, 2013. In the operative complaint, Holmes claims that he was on 

his way home from work when he was approached by police officers with their guns 

drawn, pointed at him. The officers ordered him to get down on the ground, placed him in 

handcuffs, and interrogated him about a shooting that took place earlier in the evening. 

Holmes claims that this excessively forceful detention injured his knee, caused him to miss 

six weeks of work, and caused him to suffer emotional distress. See Dkt. No. 13, 

Amended Complaint, filed May 13, 2014, ¶¶ 13-18. 

At earlier stages of the case, Holmes asserted additional claims against the present 

defendants and against additional defendants. On October 24, 2014, the Court granted 

Holmes’ request to voluntarily dismiss defendant Officers Valentine, Kikuchi, and Leung. 

Case 3:14-cv-00584-NC Document 110 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 14-cv-00584 NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 77. In a separate order that same day, the Court dismissed defendant Officers 

Cummins and Kuger, as they had not been served with the complaint and Holmes elected 

not to pursue them. Dkt. No. 78. Then, on October 22, 2015, Holmes stipulated to the 

dismissal of his claims against the City and County of San Francisco and Officer Paramjit 

Kaur. Dkt. No. 96. In the same stipulation, Holmes dropped his claims against Espinoza 

and Frenkel for racial profiling and unlawful detention. Id. Accordingly, Holmes’ only 

live claim is for excessive force against Officers Espinoza and Frenkel in violation of the 

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 

 Now before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Officers 

Espinoza and Frenkel. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is 

proper when the moving party establishes that there is “no genuine dispute as to any 

material fact” and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The core material facts presented by 

Espinoza and Frenkel are simple: neither officer saw nor interacted with Holmes at any

time on February 23, 2013. Dkt. No. 99 (Espinoza declaration); Dkt. No. 100 (Frenkel 

declaration). In short, they do not dispute that other police officers detained Holmes on 

February 23. But the officers who detained Holmes were Ken Kikuchi and Oscar Abucay, 

not Espinoza and Frenkel. Dkt. No. 101 (Kikuchi declaration); Dkt. No. 98 (Abucay 

declaration). As a result, according to the moving defendants, there is no dispute of fact 

that Espinoza and Frenkel did not use excessive force against Holmes and they are entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.

Holmes’ response concedes that summary judgment in favor of Officers Espinoza 

and Frenkel is appropriate. On the last page, Holmes’ brief states:

“EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM PERTAINING TO 

DEFENDANTS ESPINOSA AND FRENKEL

As to these two defendants, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses 

these two individuals.” 

Dkt. No. 107 at 7. Holmes’ declaration submitted with the response does not create 

a genuine dispute of fact either. Dkt. No. 107-1. He declares that “defendants” 

Case 3:14-cv-00584-NC Document 110 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 14-cv-00584 NC 3

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

Northern District of California

approached him, drew their guns, pointed their guns at him, ordered him to the ground, 

handcuffed him, and questioned him about a shooting. But he does not introduce any 

evidence to contradict the defendants’ assertion that the particular officers involved with 

him on February 23, 2013 were not Espinoza and Frenkel. Id.

At bottom, Officers Espinoza and Frenkel have established that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on 

Holmes’ claims against them of excessive force against them. Holmes has not shown that 

Espinoza and Frenkel used any force against him, let alone excessive force in violation of 

the Constitution. The Court therefore GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Espinoza 

and Frenkel and against Holmes. 

With all claims against all defendants dismissed, the Court will enter judgment and 

direct the Clerk of Court to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00584-NC Document 110 Filed 11/12/15 Page 3 of 3