Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05495/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05495-5/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

HAO-QI GONG, and JEFFERY PETERS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF ALAMEDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

NO. C 03-5495 TEH 

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter was submitted to the Court without oral argument. Having carefully

considered the parties’ written arguments and the record herein, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave

to file a motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED for the reasons stated below. 

II. BACKGROUND

This case stems from the arrest of Plaintiffs Hao-Qi Gong (“Gong”) and Jefferey

Peters (“Peters”) following a welfare check on Plaintiffs’ son, Kyle, by the City of Alameda

Police Department on February 4, 2003. A full recitation of the facts is contained in the

Order for summary judgment. A brief synopsis of the facts relevant to this motion follows:

On February 4, 2003, City of Alameda Police Officers Ottaviano and Jones attempted

to conduct a child welfare check on Kyle Jones. When they arrived at Plaintiffs’ apartment,

they received no response to their repeated knocks on the front door. However, they

observed a shadowy figure through the peep hole, and subsequently entered the apartment

due to concerns for the safety of Plaintiffs’ son. After the ensuing interactions with Plaintiff

Jones, and a brief encounter with Plaintiff Gong, the officers arrested Plaintiffs for

obstructing a welfare check in violation of California Penal Code § 148. 

Case 3:03-cv-05495-TEH Document 81 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 6
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

Defendant Westmoreland subsequently interviewed Plaintiffs’ son Kyle regarding the

assertions by his grandmother that he had been digitally anally penetrated by his mother,

Plaintiff Gong. Based on his observations during that interview, Defendant Westmoreland

filed charges against Plaintiff Gong for violation of California Penal Code §§ 288(a) and

289(d)(4) for lewd acts with children and penetration by a foreign object, respectively

[hereinafter “sex charges”]. In order to convict a defendant under these sections, it is

necessary to prove a specific criminal intent of an “intent to arouse.” When he was later

deposed, Defendant Westmoreland stated that he did not, at the time of the arrest, have

evidence of Defendant Gong’s specific intent to arouse. 

Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action on December 5, 2003 pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, alleging that Defendants violated their liberty and property interests under color of

state law. On November 17, 2006, Defendants moved for a summary judgement, which the

Court granted in part and denied in part. Relevant to this motion, the Court granted summary

judgment in favor of Defendants with respect to Plaintiff Gong’s § 1983 claim based on her

arrest for the sex charges. On February 20, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration of that portion of the Court’s ruling which granted a summary

judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs’ claim that the sex charges against Plaintiff

Gong violated her rights under § 1983. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. The Court’s Authority to Reconsider Interlocutory Rulings. 

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, the party making an application for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration must specifically show one of three prerequisites. Plaintiffs do not

establish any of the prerequisites for reconsideration under this rule. Plaintiffs rely on two

cases that easily could have been presented to the Court had they exercised reasonable

diligence in opposing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Additionally, Plaintiffs do

not argue that new facts or a change of law have emerged since the interlocutory judgment. 

Finally, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Court manifestly failed to consider material

Case 3:03-cv-05495-TEH Document 81 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 6
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

In granting this motion, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that the § 1983 claim

based on the arrest for the sex charges was decided sua sponte. The issue of the sex charges

was raised in the motion for summary judgment, then in Plaintiffs’ opposition, as well as in

the reply and at oral argument. Each party had ample notice and opportunity to brief and

litigate the issue, and the Court considered the merits of the cause of action. As such, the

Court acted within its authority in granting a summary judgment. See Crawford v. Gould, 56

F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 1995); Apache Survival Coalition v. United States, 21 F.3d 895,

910 (9th Cir. 1994).

3

facts or dispositive law that were presented to the Court. Therefore, Plaintiffs failed to

satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 7-9. Although Plaintiff’s motion is technically

defective, the Court nonetheless has the inherent authority to revisit and modify any

interlocutory orders at any time prior to final judgement. See, e.g., Amarel v. Connell, 102

F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir. 1996); John Simmons Co. v. Grier Bros, 258 U.S. 82, 88 (1922);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “A district court may reconsider and reverse a previous interlocutory

decision for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an

intervening change in or clarification of intervening law.” Abada v. Charles Schwab, Inc.,

127 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1002 (S.D. Cal. 2000). The Court concludes that, in this instance, its

interest in deciding issues on the merits warrants allowing the motion for reconsideration to

proceed under its inherent authority.1

B. The Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration is Granted to 

 Address the Issues of Probable Cause and Qualified Immunity.

The Court finds that the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is

warranted to address two issues. The first is whether summary judgment was properly

granted on the ground that Defendant Westmoreland had probable cause with respect to the

specific intent element of the sex charges. Although Plaintiffs failed to bring the relevant

cases to the Court’s attention at the summary judgment proceedings, they have since

provided two cases which the Court finds establish the basis for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration. In these cases, the Ninth Circuit held that “[w]hen specific intent is a

required element of the offense, the arresting officer must have probable cause for that

element in order to reasonably believe that a crime has occurred.” Kennedy v. Los Angeles

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 702, 705 (9th Cir. 1990); Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 237

Case 3:03-cv-05495-TEH Document 81 Filed 04/24/07 Page 3 of 6
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

(9th Cir. 1995). See also United States v. Lopez, ___ F.3d ___, No. 05-30347, 2007 WL

800652, at *3 (9th Cir. Mar. 12, 2007) (“When specific intent is a required element of an

offense, the arresting officer must have probable cause for that element in order to reasonably

believe that a crime has occurred.”). In deciding whether probable cause was established at

the time of the arrest, “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether the police had information that would

reasonably lead to the conclusion, by fair probability,” that an individual had the requisite

specific intent. Lopez, No. 05-30347, 2007 WL 800652, at *7 (9th Cir. Mar. 12, 2007). 

i. Probable Cause With Respect to the Specific Intent Element 

 for the Sex Charges. 

Plaintiffs argue that the Court improperly granted a summary judgment by deciding

material questions of fact regarding the existence of probable cause with respect to the

specific intent elements of the sex charges. In order to convict a defendant under California

Penal Code §§ 288 and 289(d)(4), the government would have to prove that the defendant

acted with “the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying . . . the sexual desires of that

person or the child,” and “the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification or abuse by a foreign

object,” respectively. Cal. Penal Code §§ 288(a), 289(k)(1). Plaintiffs argue that Defendant

Westmoreland could not have had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff Gong on the sex charges

because he knew of no facts or evidence that would support the mental culpability elements

at the time of the arrest. 

In ascertaining probable cause, a reasonable police officer must evaluate the totality of

the circumstances. An arrest is justified where, “under the totality of the circumstances

known to the arresting officers, a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair

probability that [the individual] had committed a crime.” United States v. Smith, 790 F.2d

789, 792 (9th Cir. 1986)). Here, the circumstances known to Defendant Westmoreland

include (1) Plaintiff Gong’s assertion that she was helping her son go to the bathroom,

(2) Kyle’s verbal confirmation of that explanation, (3) Kyle’s non-verbal reaction to

interview questions, (4) Plaintiff Gong’s admission that she had digitally anally penetrated

her son, and (5) the circumstances surrounding the child welfare check. Additionally,

Case 3:03-cv-05495-TEH Document 81 Filed 04/24/07 Page 4 of 6
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

Defendant Westmoreland acknowledged that he had no evidence of the requisite criminal

intent, but that he hoped that such evidence would be developed in subsequent interviews

with Kyle conducted by CALICO, a child forensic interview center. In light of the additional

authority cited by Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs should be permitted to file a

motion for reconsideration as to whether these circumstances are sufficient to establish

probable cause at the time of the arrest.

ii. Qualified Immunity.

In the event that the Court finds that summary judgment was improperly granted on

the probable cause grounds, the Court further finds that a motion for reconsideration is

appropriate to determine whether Defendant Westmoreland would still be entitled to

qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if

“their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). “If

an official could reasonably have believed her actions were legal in light of clearly

established law and the information she possessed at the time, she is protected by qualified

immunity.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). With respect to wrongful arrest

claims, “[e]ven law enforcement officials who reasonably but mistakenly conclude that

probable cause is present are entitled to immunity.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635,

641 (1987). 

If, upon reconsideration, the Court concludes that probable cause was not established

with respect to the specific intent element of the sex charges, it must then determine whether

Defendant Westmoreland’s mistake as to probable cause was reasonable. If the mistake was

objectively reasonable, the Court’s prior summary judgment ruling was proper. Conversely,

if Defendant Westmoreland’s mistake was objectively unreasonable, then he is not entitled to

the defense of qualified immunity. Again, in light of the authority city by Plaintiffs, the

Court concludes that Plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to present their motion for

reconsideration on this issue. 

Case 3:03-cv-05495-TEH Document 81 Filed 04/24/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is GRANTED for the

reasons stated in this order. Specifically, the parties shall address whether summary

judgment was proper on the issue of whether probable cause existed with respect to the

specific intent elements of the sex charges. Additionally, the parties shall address whether, if

probable cause did not exist, Defendant Westmoreland’s mistake as to the existence of

probable cause was objectively reasonable.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/23/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:03-cv-05495-TEH Document 81 Filed 04/24/07 Page 6 of 6