Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-20-2023

Case Style:

Jose Artemio Carmona-Perez v. City of Salem, et al.

Case Number: 6:20-cv-00186

Judge: Karin J. Immergut

Court: United States District Court for the District of Eugene (Lane County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:



Click Here For The Best Eugene Civil Rights Lawyer Directory




Defendant's Attorney: Sebastian Tapia and David B. Atchison

Description: Eugene, Oregon personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the defendants on prisoner civil rights theories under 42 U.S.C. 1983.


This action arises from an encounter between Jose Artemio Carmona-Perez and police officers on February 28, 2018, in Salem, Oregon. Plaintiff Carmona-Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendants City of Salem, Sergeant Michael Baskett, Officer Daniel Chase, and Officer Thomas Ammon (collectively, “Defendants”). Compl., ECF 2; First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF 46. Plaintiff brings the following claims: (1) a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sergeant Baskett and Officers Chase and Ammon; (2) a Monell claim under § 1983 against the City; (3) a state-law negligence claim against the City; and (4) a state-law battery claim against the City. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims. Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. (“MSJ”), ECF 63. This Court held a hearing on Defendants' motion on September 18, 2023. Mins. of Proceedings, ECF 98.

After considering the record, written briefs, and arguments of counsel, this Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court grants the motion as to the Monell claim and the state-law negligence claim. The Court denies the motion as to the state-law battery claim. As to the Fourth Amendment claim, the Court concludes that the take-down was a reasonable use of force as a matter of law, but even assuming it was an unreasonable exercise of force, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for this conduct. Therefore, this Court grants Defendants' motion as to the take-down. However, there are issues of material fact as to whether a constitutional violation occurred regarding the use of “palm strikes” once Plaintiff was on the ground, and whether Defendants Chase and Baskett are entitled to qualified immunity for this conduct. Accordingly, this Court denies Defendants' motion as the the palm strikes with respect to Officer Chase and Sergeant Baskett.

Outcome: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 63, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant Ammon is hereby DISMISSED from this action.

10/20/2023 101 60-DAY ORDER OF DISMISSAL: The Court having been informed by counsel for the parties that this action has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to LR 41-1, this action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs and with leave, upon good cause shown within sixty (60) days, to have this order of dismissal set aside and the action reinstated if the settlement is not consummated. Pending motions, if any, are denied as moot. All pretrial deadlines and any trial date are stricken. By Clerk of Court Melissa Aubin. (jy) (Entered: 10/20/2023)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: