Barbosa v. Shasta County ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS BARBOSA, et al., No. 2:20-cv-02298-JAM-DMC 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 SHASTA COUNTY, et al. ON CLAIM SEVEN 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for 18 summary judgment (“MSJ”). See MSJ, ECF No. 38. Following the 19 Court’s hearing on this matter, the parties submitted 20 supplemental briefs on Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action for 21 violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and 22 Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), 23 ECF No. 20; see also Pls.’ Supplemental Brief (“Brief”), ECF 24 No. 54; Defs.’ Response to Pls.’ Supplemental Brief (“Response”), 25 ECF No. 57. 26 Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, read in the 27 light most favorable to the non-moving party, indicates “that 28 there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 1 movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. 2 P. 56(a). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies 3 summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ seventh claim.1 4 Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination based on 5 disability by public entities. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B). Public 6 entities are also vicariously liable under the ADA for acts of 7 their employees. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 8 1141 (9th Cir. 2001). Two types of Title II claims are 9 applicable to seizures in the Ninth Circuit: (1) wrongful arrest, 10 where police wrongly arrest someone with a disability because 11 they misperceive the effects of that disability as a criminal 12 activity; and (2) reasonable accommodation, where police fail to 13 reasonably accommodate a person’s disability during an 14 investigation or arrest, causing the person to suffer greater 15 injury or indignity in that process than other arrestees. See 16 Sheehan v. City of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211, 1232 (9th Cir. 17 2014), rev'd in part, cert. dismissed in part sub nom., City of 18 San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765, 191 L. Ed. 2d 856 19 (2015). Plaintiffs allege both theories here. 20 It is undisputed that Decedent Barbosa suffered from Post- 21 Traumatic Stress Disorder and was declared disabled by the 22 Veterans Administration. Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed 23 Facts (“PSUF”) ¶ 32, ECF No. 51. It is also undisputed that the 24 responding deputies were informed that Barbosa was “possibly in 25 psychosis or having some kind of episode” and that his wife had 26 requested an ambulance for him. PSUF ¶ 35. Further, Defendants 27 28 1 The Court heard this matter on September 13, 2022. 1 Sergeant Gonzales, Deputy Van Eyck, and Deputy Fleming all 2 personally responded to a prior mental health call for Barbosa a 3 month or two before the incident at issue. PSUF ¶ 36. 4 Based on these undisputed facts, the Court finds that a 5 reasonable juror could conclude that Defendant officers knew of 6 or had reason to know of Decedent’s disability and shot him due 7 to misperceiving the effects of his disability as criminal 8 activity, satisfying the elements for a wrongful arrest claim 9 under the ADA. Orr v. Cal. Highway Patrol, No. 2:14-cv-585-WBS, 10 2015 WL 848553, *45 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2015) (The elements for a 11 wrongful arrest claim are: (1) that they were disabled; (2) that 12 officers knew or should have known they were disabled; and 13 (3) that officers arrested him because of legal conduct relating 14 to his disability). Summary judgment is therefore inappropriate 15 on this claim. 16 As for Plaintiffs’ claim for reasonable accommodations, “a 17 public entity is on notice that an individual needs an 18 accommodation when it knows that an individual requires one, 19 either because that need is obvious or because the individual 20 requests an accommodation.” Robertson v. Las Animas County 21 Sheriff's Dep't, 500 F.3d 1185, 1198 (10th Cir. 2007). For the 22 same reasons as above, the Court finds sufficient support in the 23 record for a trier of fact to conclude that Defendants had notice 24 of Barbosa’s need for an accommodation. 25 Defendants contend that they accommodated Barbosa to the 26 extent required by law in their pre-shooting conduct when they 27 ended their pursuit in an attempt to deescalate the situation. 28 Response at 2. However, the situation continued to evolve nee nee en I IIE IIE OS I 1 thereafter, and the record arguably shows that further 2 accommodations were possible. Whether Barbosa posed an immediate 3 threat that rendered accommodations unreasonable is a question of 4 fact that the Court cannot decide in a motion for summary 5 judgment. Accordingly, the Court must leave the matter to a jury. 6 For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion 7 for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action for 8 | violations under the ADA and RA. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 3, 2022 11 opens JOHN A. MENDEZ 13 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28