Federal Judge Rules Wrongful Death Lawsuit Can Proceed to Trial

San Francisco lawyers Arturo J. González, Alexandria Amezcua and Christopher Wiener, who represent the Figueroas, contend the officers shot an unarmed Figueroa while he was being restrained by a police dog. They also said when officers arrived, Figueroa was in the home alone and not posing a threat to anyone.

In court papers, the family’s lawyers say Figueroa’s fingerprints were not on the knife and laboratory test results show no conclusive proof that Figueroa even touched the knife.

“A reasonable jury could easily find that the absence of any DNA or fingerprints on a small steak knife found on the floor of a cluttered bedroom was strong evidence the knife had not been wielded by a violent perpetrator, but instead merely happened to be in the room,” Drozd’s ruling says.

Because Figueroa was shot four times, Drozd writes: “A rational jury could find that the force used by the officers was excessive even if the decedent had a knife in his hand.”

In addition, the judge said, there are other disputed facts, such as the amount of time police waited before entering the Figueroa home and whether police knew Figueroa’s criminal history before entering the home.

The Figueroa family’s lawyers contend that police acted with “deliberate indifference” by recklessly provoking a potential violent confrontation. In other words, by sending in a 60- to 65-pound dog, the defendants knew it would attack the 5-foot-8, 132-pound Figueroa.

========= Multi-Author AdSense ========= Skipped due to there being 3 AdSense ads on this page already ========================================

Police, however, contend the decision to enter the home was based on concerns that police calls were backing up, “rather than the exigency of the situation,” court records say. In his ruling, Drozd says a jury could conclude that “the decision to escalate the potentially volatile situation simply in order to be freed to attend other calls was a deliberate indifferent action by the officers that ‘shocks the conscience.’ ”

Police Chief Jerry Dyer and the City Attorney’s Office said in an email: “A motion for summary judgment is brought in a case to narrow the scope of the issues raised in the complaint prior to trial. The judge ruled there were facts in this case that needed to be determined by a jury.”

Dyer added: “We believe the officers involved in this matter acted with extreme patience. Additionally, we found the force used by officers to be objectively reasonable, within legal standards and department policy. We look forward to aggressively defending this matter in court.”