Fed. Judge throws out Hemet police brutality case

California Central District Judge John Holcomb threw out a case July 17 that alleged the actions of Hemet police officers violated a family’s civil rights.

The March 3, 2022 complaint claims that Ryan Gadison was targeted by Hemet police officers for being “an African American male driving a ‘nice’ car”—a 2020 Dodge Challenger. Hemet police officers pulled behind Gadison as he parked in the driveaway of his fiancée’s home on March 21, 2021. Hemet Police Officers M. Bell and P. Sobaszek stopped him on claims that he had a suspended driver’s license, then searched and impounded his vehicle, the complaint says. They arrested Gadison, his fiancée Mariah Hereford, and Mariah’s mother, Monett Hereford, the complaint said. The officers swatted phones out of both Mariah and Monett’s hands, and slammed Mariah’s face into the ground multiple times, the complaint says. It further claims that one officer violently threw one of their dogs to the ground, and that another officer beat another one of their dogs with a baton—despite both dogs being restrained.

According to Holcomb’s ruling, Gadison was charged with driving with a suspended license. Gadison, Monett and Mariah were each issued misdemeanor citations for resisting a peace officer. Holcomb also wrote that one of the dogs had gotten loose, and had bit Bell’s leg.

The plaintiffs had filed for violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act, the Ralph Civil Rights Act, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, trespass to chattels, negligence, excessive force and unlawful detention.

Holcomb wrote that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on most of the charges. An officer has immunity from charges unless they violated a clearly defined constitutional right. Holcomb found that the plaintiffs did not prove any of their claimed constitutional rights were clearly defined, and that their changing testimony causes confusion as to the events.

“Because Mariah has provided various contradictory accounts of the officers’ actions—and because she has not established which of those actions, if any, should be attributed to Sobaszek—the Court is disinclined to credit her testimony… But even taking all of Mariah’s allegations as true, no reasonable juror could find that Sobaszek used excessive force in detaining her. Rather, because the loose dogs and the potential for additional dog bites necessarily posed a serious threat to the safety of the officers and the security of their surroundings, and because Mariah repeatedly disobeyed the officers’ commands and sought to prevent them from effecting Gadison’s arrest, the officers had a strong governmental interest in detaining Mariah.” Holcomb wrote.

As far as the discrimination claims, Holcomb wrote that the plaintiffs did not prove that the officers used race as a factor when deciding to stop Gadison. Gadison was driving with a suspended license, did not have a front license plate, and had his windows overly tinted. 

Read Holcomb’s ruling here.