RITSCHEL

RITSCHEL v. City of Fountain Valley

Bad Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 107·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 275·2006 Daily Journal DAR 2419·40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1761
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 2006G034264California6,262 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

Claiming several police officers injured him when they used force to obtain a blood sample after his arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol, plaintiff Darrell Vincent Ritschel sued defendants City of Fountain Valley and members of its police department. He alleged causes of action for violation of his civil rights under both federal and state law ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [section 1983]; Civ. Code, § 52.1, subd. (b)), plus state law claims, including assault and battery. In the first phase of a trifurcated trial, the court found the individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity as to the section 1983 claim. Based on primarily the same evidence, the court granted defendants’ motion for nonsuit and dismissed the remaining state law counts. Plaintiff appeals, challenging the decision on several procedural and substantive grounds. Finding no error, we affirm.

INTRODUCTION

After filing this appeal, plaintiff submitted a notice of his election to proceed on an appendix under California Rules of Court, rule 5.1 without a reporter’s transcript. The one-volume appendix he prepared contains only the second amended complaint, court minute orders, his moving papers…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.