Yount v. City of Sacramento 11/9/05 CA3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2006 » Yount v. City of Sacramento 11/9/05 CA3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: C046869

Case Date: 02/01/2006

Preview:Filed 11/9/05

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---STEVEN YOUNT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO et al., Defendants and Respondents. C046869 (Super. Ct. No. 01AS04272)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Richard K. Park, Judge. Reversed. Brian T. Dunn for Plaintiff and Appellant. Samuel L. Jackson, City Attorney, and Matthew D. Ruyak, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Steven Yount suffered personal injuries when Sacramento Police Officer Thomas Shrum shot him in the left buttock while four officers were trying to subdue and transport him to jail following his arrest for driving under the influence

*Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1,

this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part IV of the Discussion. 1

of alcohol (DUI).

As Yount, who was handcuffed and in leg

restraints, struggled and squirmed, Officer Shrum, intending to draw and fire his Taser gun, instead pulled out and discharged his nine-millimeter pistol. As a result of the incident, Yount pleaded no contest to violating Penal Code section 148,1 obstructing an officer in the performance of his duties. He then brought this suit against

the City of Sacramento and Officer Shrum for damages under title 42 United States Code section 1983 (hereafter federal section 1983) alleging, inter alia, that Shrum violated his civil rights by using unnecessary and grossly excessive force on him during the encounter. By stipulation of the parties, a court trial was held on the issue of whether Yount's civil rights claim was barred as a matter of law by his section 148 plea. After hearing witnesses

and reviewing the criminal file pertaining to Yount's plea, the trial court ruled that under the doctrine announced by the United States Supreme Court in Heck v. Humphrey (1994) 512 U.S. 477 [129 L.Ed.2d 383] (Heck),2 Yount's lawsuit was barred. Judgment was entered for defendants.

1 2

Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

We discuss the Heck doctrine in more detail in the Discussion, post. In a nutshell, however, the rule provides that any civil rights claim under federal section 1983 that impugns or collaterally attacks the claimant's prior criminal conviction may not be maintained unless that conviction has first been vacated. (Heck, supra, 512 U.S. at pp. 486-487 [129 L.Ed.2d at pp. 393-394].) 2

We shall conclude that on the record of the trial court, Yount's federal section 1983 cause of action did not necessarily imply the invalidity of his misdemeanor conviction for obstructing the officers in the course of their duties. Because

the Heck defense does not preclude the maintenance of Yount's lawsuit, we shall reverse. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Alleging he was the victim of excessive force by Officer Shrum, Yount filed a multi-count complaint alleging civil rights violations under federal section 1983 as well as civil tort theories of relief. Defendants twice brought motions for

summary judgment, each of which was denied. By the time of trial, Yount had elected to proceed on two causes of action--his civil rights claim under federal section 1983 and common law battery. In pretrial proceedings, the trial

court solicited briefing and argument from the parties on the issue of whether Yount's suit was foreclosed by his plea of no contest to violating section 148. After extensive trial briefs

were submitted, the parties stipulated to bifurcate the proceedings and to conduct a bench trial on the applicability of the Heck defense. Summary of the Evidence The court heard from several witnesses including the officers and a security guard who took Yount into custody. Yount did not testify, but excerpts from his deposition were read, which established that he had no memory of the occurrences 3

that night.

The testimony of percipient witnesses to the events

leading up to the shooting is summarized below. In the early morning hours of March 10, 2001, Daniel Powell, a private security guard, noticed a man near the 7-Eleven store on La Riviera Drive attempting to get in his car. The man, later identified as Yount, appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. Powell flagged down Sacramento Police

Officer Samuel Davis, and pointed to a white vehicle in which Yount was attempting to drive off. Officer Davis approached Yount and noticed that his eyes were glassy and he appeared to be inebriated. to step out of his vehicle. Davis asked Yount

As Yount opened the door, he lost Yount smelled of alcohol, so

his balance and fell onto Davis.

Officer Davis directed him to get into the back seat of his police car. Yount walked over to Davis's car, but refused to With Davis's assistance, Yount was

get in the back seat.

finally placed in the back seat. Once in the back seat, Yount's attitude changed. He began

banging around in the car, screaming obscenities and directing racial slurs at Officer Davis, who is Black. resist for three to five minutes. Finally, Officer Davis pulled Yount out of the patrol car, got him on the ground and, with the assistance of nearby security guards, managed to place him in handcuffs. As far as Yount continued to

Davis was concerned, Yount was formally under arrest at this point. 4

Minutes later, Sacramento Police Officers Daniel Swafford and Thomas Shrum and California State University Police Officer Debra Hatfield arrived to provide backup assistance. As the

officers were filling out paperwork for a DUI report, Yount again became hostile and violent in the back of the patrol car. He was kicking, screaming, yelling obscenities and banging his head against the passenger window. Officers Shrum, Swafford and

Hatfield opened the door and tried to get Yount to calm down, but he was uncooperative, hostile and irrational. At one point

Yount put his legs outside the patrol car, prompting Officer Swafford to apply his Taser gun, which calmed Yount temporarily and enabled the officers to get him back inside the car. Soon, however, Yount resumed kicking, screaming and banging in the back of the patrol car. Just as Officer Davis walked

toward the rear door of the car, Yount kicked the window out, causing glass to explode and shatter. For safety reasons, the officers decided to transfer Yount to another patrol car. They tried to get him out of the car Finally, Officers

voluntarily, but he would not cooperate.

Davis and Hatfield forcibly extricated Yount from the back seat. As he fell out of the car, Yount landed on top of Officer Davis, injuring Davis's elbow. The officers then tried to pick Yount The task was difficult,

up and carry him to another patrol car.

because Yount kicked, screamed and spat on the officers. Officer Davis rolled Yount over on the ground and put his knee into Yount's back while the other officers held him down 5

and applied leg restraints.

Because Yount continued to resist

and thrash about, Officer Shrum decided to apply his Taser. Shrum told the other officers to "hold on," that he was going "tase him." Shrum reached into his holster and drew what he Aiming toward the back of Yount's He looked at Shrum

thought was his Taser gun.

thigh, Shrum pulled the trigger and heard a pop.

his hand and realized he had discharged his pistol. exclaimed "Oh god, I shot, I shot."

Once they ascertained that

Yount had suffered a gunshot wound, the attending officers summoned medical assistance. The trial court took judicial notice of the entire criminal case file in People v. Yount (Super. Ct. Sacramento County, 2001, No. 01F02606), including the charging documents and the reporter's transcript of the hearing at which the plea was taken. That record disclosed that the People filed an amended

complaint charging Yount, inter alia, with violating section 69, a felony, to wit: unlawfully attempting, by means of threats

and violence, to interfere and prevent the officers from performing their duties. As a result of a plea bargain, Yount

pleaded no contest to the reduced charge of violating section 148, which punishes as a misdemeanor one who "willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any . . . peace officer . . . in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment . . . ."

Download Yount v. City of Sacramento 11/9/05 CA3.pdf