Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Tuesday, January 25, 2022

 

Page 1

 

Ninth Circuit:

Protester Was to Blame for Her Own Injuries

Panel Says Activist Created Necessity for Removal From City Council Meeting

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

A protester who disrupted a city council meeting and was forcibly removed, going limp, had only herself to blame for injuries she incurred from being pulled and handcuffed, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday reversing the denial of summary judgment sought by two officers based on qualified immunity.

Community activist Tasha Williamson, who came in fourth in a six-person contest in the March 3, 2020 primary for San Diego mayor, contended that National City police officers Lucky Nguyen and John McGough used excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, in ejecting her from a meeting which she and five others interrupted with their protest of the death of a man while in custody. She sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Her complaint, filed in the District Court for the Southern District of California alleges:

“Ms. Williamson was placed in handcuffs that were extremely tight, causing severe pain. She was then dragged backward by her wrists, which hyper-extended her arms, tearing ligaments in her shoulder. She can be heard in the video of the incident screaming in agony.”

Forrest’s Opinion

But yesterday’s opinion by Circuit Judge Danielle J. Forrest declares:

“Williamson could have avoided or reduced the pain and injury she alleges she suffered from the Officers’ conduct by cooperating with them and leaving the room under her own power. She did not. But her choice does not render the Officers’ conduct unreasonable. To conclude otherwise would be to discount entirely the City’s legitimate interests in maintaining order and ensuring that the public’s business is not circumvented by people engaging in disruptive, albeit nonviolent, conduct.”

The judge acknowledged that “the city’s interest was low given the lack of exigency posed by threat of harm or other factors,” but said that they city was not obliged to acquiesce in the conducting of city business being halted.

“National City’s choice was to allow the protesters to remain in the city council’s meeting room until they chose to leave on their own—which the constitution does not require—or to forcibly remove them,” Forrest wrote. “Williamson has not identified any less intrusive means available to the Officers for restoring order in the city council room so that the city’s legitimate business could proceed.”

Bane Act

In addition to her claim under the federal civil rights statute, Williamson sued under California’s Civil Code §52.1, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. That section authorizes an action against a person who, “acting under color of law, interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion…with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States….”

Forrest said:

“Because we conclude that the Officers did not violate Williamson’s Fourth Amendment rights, we reverse the district court’s decision denying summary judgment on Williamson’s Bane Act claims as well.”

The case is Williamson v. City of National City, 20-55966.

 

Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company