Opinion ID: 744565
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Responsibility of individual defendants

Text: 65 In support of their motions for summary judgment, defendants submitted declarations from each of the moving officers. We briefly summarize them below. 66 David Pike, a formally-deputized Federal Task Force Officer, stated in his declaration that it was he who gave the order to break down the Listons' door with the battering ram. When the entering officers were met near the door by a white male resembling the description of James Hill, Pike ordered the suspect, later discovered to be Liston, to get down on the floor. In his declaration, he asserted that other officers handcuffed Liston. Pike contended that he helped Liston to his feet, brought him into the kitchen and conducted an interview while the search progressed. When, according to his declaration, he determined that the male suspect was James Liston and not James Hill, Pike removed the handcuffs. Except for bringing Liston into the kitchen/dining room area, Pike claimed that he had no physical contact with the occupants of the house. In addition, Pike contended that he did not destroy or damage property while in the Listons' home and did not recall other officers doing so. 67 Paul Amicone, an officer with the Rialto Police Department, stated that he did not recall handcuffing anyone or having physical contact with anyone. He admitted, however, that he did stand by and watch a man handcuffed on the floor until another officer announced that the house was clear of additional suspects. 11 68 Bart Belknap, a deputy with the San Bernardino's Sheriff's Department, asserted that his assignment was to provide additional perimeter security and that he entered the house and took up a position near the front door with his partner to make sure no one came out. When shortly afterwards, the person in charge said they were the wrong people, Belknap claimed to have stepped outside, and spent the rest of the time on the front porch. He denied having contact with anyone inside the home. 69 Gail Marianes, a deputy with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, was the team leader, responsible for handing out assignments to the people involved in executing the warrant. In his declaration, Marianes asserted that he did not effect entry 12 and had no contact with the plaintiffs other than seeing them. 70 Tom Mitchell, a peace officer employed by the Ontario Police Department, was assigned to provide additional officer safety support. He stated in his declaration that during the time the warrant was executed, I was in the front yard of the location. I did not participate in the entry nor did I enter the premises. He also denied having contact with any of the plaintiffs. 71 John Powell, a deputy with the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, was reassigned, according to his declaration, at the last minute, to report to a house in Agoura, California. He contended that he was never at the Listons' home. 72 Robert Pruitt, a deputy with the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, in a declaration identical to that of Bart Belknap, asserted that his assignment was to provide additional perimeter security and that he entered the house and with his partner took up a position near the front door to make sure no one came out. When shortly afterwards, the person in charge said they were the wrong people, Pruitt claimed to have stepped outside, and spent the rest of the time on the front porch. He denied having contact with anyone inside the home. 73 Darryl Reed, a peace officer with the Ontario Police Department, was assigned to provide additional officer-safety support. He stated in his declaration, which is identical to Tom Mitchell's, that during the time the warrant was executed, I was in the front yard of the location. I did not participate in the entry nor did I enter the premises. He also denied having contact with any of the plaintiffs. 74 Raymond Rucker, a lieutenant with the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, contended that he was at the command post and never any where [sic] near plaintiffs' home. He stated that he did not participate in the investigation or obtain the search warrant. In his declaration, he asserted that he did give a part of the briefing prior to execution, but my portion of the briefing consisted of explaining the overall goals and objectives of that date and did not deal with specifics of plaintiff's location or with any of the targeted suspects. 75 Danny Scaturro, senior deputy with the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, was the lead investigator who compiled the information necessary to obtain the warrant. On the day the search warrant was executed, according to his declaration, Scaturro was at the command post and had no contact with the Liston family. 76 On the basis of these declarations, and in light of the fact that the Listons failed to provide any additional evidence regarding the conduct of individual officers at the scene, the district court granted summary judgment to each of the moving defendants. Plaintiffs nevertheless persuasively argue that that decision was in error in large part. 77 The Listons apparently did not know, at least as of the time of summary judgment, which officers did what acts during the execution of the warrant: the descriptions of the events provided by the Listons in their affidavits tell only of the acts of unspecified officers. Except insofar as the declarations submitted by the defendants themselves provide information regarding individual involvement in wrongdoing, the Listons offer no direct evidence to establish the liability of any officer. 78 Nevertheless, we conclude that summary judgment is inappropriate in the case of a number of the defendants. All of the officers who admit to having been inside the Saddlecreek premises during the execution of the warrant were participants in the detention of the Listons, not merely those officers who used force to handcuff Jim Liston. See United States v. Kerr, 817 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that seizure occurs where the officer by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen). Because we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the reasonableness of the Listons' detention, those officers who by their presence in the home assisted in restraining them--defendants Pike, Amicone, Belknap, Marianes, and Pruitt--are not entitled to summary judgment. We also note in support of our conclusion that we have in some circumstances denied summary judgment even though plaintiffs could not state with certainty which officers had violated their rights. See Rutherford v. City of Berkeley, 780 F.2d 1444, 1448 (9th Cir.1986) (holding in police brutality case that a jury could reasonably conclude that three officer defendants were participants in punching or kicking plaintiff, even though defendants denied assaulting plaintiff and plaintiff could not state that specific defendants punched or kicked him). In light of the particular facts in this case, we conclude that the district court's order granting summary judgment for Pike, Amicone, Belknap, Marianes, and Pruitt must be reversed. 79 We affirm, however, with respect to Officers Mitchell and Reed, who, according to their uncontroverted declarations, remained outside the house in the front yard at all times, ignorant of the facts learned by the officers inside the house. Rutherford does not justify denying immunity to these two officers, and nothing in the record supports any theory under which they could be held responsible for the use of excessive force against the Listons or the unreasonable detention that the Listons allege occurred. We also affirm with respect to two officers, Powell and Rucker, who offered uncontroverted evidence that they were not present at the Saddlecreek Drive residence at the time of the events in question. Deputy Scaturro, who also offered uncontroverted evidence that he was not present, similarly cannot be held responsible as a participant in the execution of the warrant. He is, however, liable for his conduct in obtaining the warrant, if the jury finds his actions reckless or intentional, as we discussed above. 13