A federal judge said on Thursday that most of the civil-rights claims against the San Francisco police department for its arrests during the 2023 Dolores Park hill bomb could go forward, potentially setting up the city to defend a costly class-action lawsuit.
U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros’ orders will allow the lawsuit to proceed, but she did not rule on whether its claims were valid, which would require a jury trial. The city could also settle with the plaintiffs out of court.
Three teenagers are suing the city of San Francisco, the San Francisco Police Department, and several officers and police top brass for what they allege were civil-rights violations during the July 8, 2023, incident; one of the earlier plaintiffs has dropped out of the suit.
That night, dozens of officers clad in riot gear surrounded and then arrested 113 young people — almost all of them teenagers, and 81 of them minors — after a crowd attending the annual “hill bomb” skateboarding event began vandalizing buildings and Muni vehicles, and throwing bottles and cans at officers.
Those encircled by the officers were arrested a block from Dolores Park, on 17th Street between Guerrero and Dolores streets, where they had moved after officers issued multiple dispersal orders and advanced corner to corner, clearing crowds. The youth were held for hours on the street and in the cold, without food or water, and were kept separated from their parents nearby.
Several girls said they urinated on themselves, and some of the boys used a bucket thrown down by a neighbor to relieve themselves. Plaintiffs alleged that the city and the police officers violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and violated their civil rights under California state law.
Judge Cisneros issued two orders today: The first struck down the city’s attempt to deny a class-action certification, meaning the suit from the three teenagers could, potentially, be expanded to include all 113 youth similarly arrested that day.
The second denied the teenagers’ free speech and racial discrimination claims. The plaintiffs had sought to argue under the First Amendment “that the Dolores hill bomb is an expression of skateboarding culture and its values of freedom and resistance to regulation in an urban landscape,” but, the judge wrote, “that alone is not sufficient to bring the gathering within the First Amendment’s ambit.”
Cisneros also denied the teens’ civil rights claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, and a state civil-rights law that concerns racial discrimination: Most of those arrested that day were Black and brown, but the judge dismissed discrimination claims as “not supported by law.”
But Cisneros did advance the bulk of the plaintiffs’ allegations — namely, that officers unreasonably detained the teenagers without probable cause, and mistreated them by holding them in poor conditions — under the Fourth Amendment and the state’s Bane Act, a civil rights law that allows Californians to sue for alleged civil-rights violations.
The judge wrote that she is “satisfied that plaintiffs’ allegations of an indiscriminate mass arrest without probable cause” could prove that “the defendants who ordered that arrest acted with reckless disregard for arrestees’ right to be free from unreasonable seizures.”
The Bane Act claim is particularly important: Police officers do not have qualified immunity under state law, meaning the officers, and their supervisors, can be held liable for their actions that night. Damages under the Bane Act are a minimum of $4,000 per person, but can reach up to three times the amount sought by the plaintiffs, plus attorneys’ fees and other compensation.
At a minimum, that would mean $452,000 in damages if all 113 youth join the class action, plus the other fees. But, in a trial, the jury could award much higher damages per individual, and the court could then triple them under the law, meaning the city could be on the hook for many millions more.
Rachel Lederman, an attorney with the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund who is representing the four teenagers in court, said she is pleased with the judge’s motions and “determined to obtain justice for the young people whose rights were violated.”
“All our main claims survived. The judge is really thinking about the case, so I feel very optimistic going forward,” she said, adding that the two parties will now move onto discovery to unearth evidence, but will also hold a conference in November to negotiate a possible settlement.
The city attorney’s office also expressed contentment, saying it is “pleased the court dismissed many of plaintiffs’ claims and appropriately narrowed this case moving forward.” It said that the city must “defend the police department’s ability to appropriately and legally control a crowd and to maintain public safety,” and that the city had been put in a bind: It has been sued in the past for “failing to prevent deaths or serious injuries” resulting from the hill bomb, and is now being sued for taking enforcement action to stop them.
“Some years, the city will be faulted for not preventing reckless and dangerous conduct at an unpermitted event, and other years the city will be faulted for exercising appropriate crowd control and protecting public safety,” the office said in a statement.
A couple of procedural clarifications. First, at this stage the court HAD to accept the plaintiffs’ claim that “we didn’t do anything wrong and they arrested us for no reason.” That may or may not, in fact, be true, but the facts will be developed later. If there was no probable cause, then yes the city will have to pay up something (although it’s not going to be a huge sum). If there was probable cause – which doesn’t mean those arrested actually engaged in criminal activity but just that there was probable cause to believe they did so – then the city will not be liable.
Second, the court did not rule that the case can proceed as a class action. It merely denied a motion to strike the class claims at this early stage. I don’t even know why the city brought that motion as it had little to no chance. The plaintiffs are still going to have to move for class certification later, and if the facts show that there are individual circumstances for each person arrested – e.g. some engaged in criminal acts while others may not have – that will be difficult. It’s very easy to file a lawsuit and make a lot of claims, and get past a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs still have to support it on the facts. That is much more difficult. We’ll see what the actual facts are.
SF is Aleister Crowley’s dream: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
No laws for you, you perfect little angels.
These spoiled brats were part of a mob that refused to disperse, damaged city property, and now they want to take money from our schools and other projects. A pox on them.
They were kids skateboarding unlawfully detained.
Always the will to punish, punish, punish.
Countersue to recover city costs.
Angry commentors here,
These young bucks and their adoring crowds piss the cops and gentry off.
This is no different than the Bull Run in Pamplona is it ?
They do these Wheelie kinda things with cars scorching the road under my Valencia Street Windows.
The roar by on their Mountain Bikes reared up in the air on one wheel like erections.
They lock horns on hillsides in Switzerland.
Wait, that last one’s goats.
Well, bottom line is that it is Springtime and the young males are Acting Out to get the attention of young females.
All of the opposition suffers from Repressed or Fading Sexuality and are jealous and reactionary when they should shake their heads long as the goats don’t hurt anybody but themselves.
On a more sinister note, the ‘Bomb’ course is part of my daily walk and there was a City Crew out grinding down those circular speed bumps atop the course and when I asked if they were moving them because of my complaints (lol) they said that they were moving them further up the Hill Bomb Hill.
Middle of the block instead of end ?
Any of you figure out what they’re doing ?
Police Commissioners at a rare meeting asked Chief Scott if they’re planning to meet with interest groups as next event is month or two away and he shined them on.
Last time he wasn’t even part of the planning for the Hundred Officer Assault Force that went out to kidnap the Mission’s Young during Mating Season.
Ahhhh, San Francisco in the Spring with Gay Pride and Black Pride and Carnaval and the Hill Bomb.
Go Niners !!
h.
What lawsuit was there that sued the cops for not stopping this event? I see no specifics, just claims by the cops.
Apparently, you suffer from *I only hear what I want to hear* disease.
They said, “IN THE PAST…”
Here is that part of the article:
It said that the city must “defend the police department’s ability to appropriately and legally control a crowd and to maintain public safety,” and that the city had been put in a bind: It has been sued in the past for “failing to prevent deaths or serious injuries” resulting from the hill bomb, and is now being sued for taking enforcement action to stop them.
“Some years, the city will be faulted for not preventing reckless and dangerous conduct at an unpermitted event, and other years the city will be faulted for exercising appropriate crowd control and protecting public safety,” the office said in a statement.