This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Deprivation of Rights
Equal Protection Clause

Gared Hansen v. City of San Francisco; Gregory P. Suhr, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive

Published: Jan. 17, 2015 | Result Date: Mar. 31, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:12-cv-04210-JST Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Christopher L. Gaspard

Zachery A. Lopes

Michael A. McGill


Defendant

Elizabeth S. Salveson
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Dennis J. Herrera
(San Francisco Public Utilities Commission)

Lisa B. Berkowitz
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)


Facts

Gared Hansen filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of San Francisco, Chief of Police Gregory Suhr, and former Chief of Police George Gascon.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that he was a police officer for the San Francisco Police Dept. and also practiced photography as a hobby. Plaintiff alleged that, in December 2009, Gascon suspended him for five days following an investigation into "the nature" of plaintiff's artwork, even though his art contained no indication of his employment as a police officer. Plaintiff further alleged that, in January 2012, he was suspended by Suhr for 10 days because an investigation into his personal website concluded that plaintiff's art brought discredit to the police department. Plaintiff contended that defendants' actions violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free expression.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants argued that plaintiff's claims based on his December 2009 suspension were barred by the statute of limitations. Defendants also argued that plaintiff's claims against the city were barred because plaintiff's suspension was not made pursuant to an official policy. Defendants further argued that Suhr and Gascon were entitled to qualified immunity.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found, in part, that plaintiff's claims regarding the December 2009 suspension was barred by the statute of limitations. The court also found that the city was not liable for plaintiff's alleged claims because the city did not cause a constitutional violation through an official policy. The court further held that Gascon and Suhr were entitled to qualified immunity.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Aug. 9, 2012.


#91057

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390