1084, 1103 (N.D.Cal.2005) (internal quotations and alteration omitted). Thus, in that case, Magistrate Judge Chen allowed a plaintiff to proceed on a section 52.1 claim for unreasonable seizure “even though there was no claim that the police used excessive physical force in carrying [it] out.” Id. On the other hand, Magistrate Judge James held in a different context that “section 52.1 is only applicable when a defendant intends by his or her conduct to interfere with a separate, affirmative right enjoyed by a plaintiff; it does not apply to a plaintiffs allegation of use of excessive force absent a showing that the act was done to interfere with a separate state or federal constitutional right.” Justin v. City & Cnty. of S.F., No. 05-4812, 2008 WL 1990819, *9 (N.D.Cal. May 5, 2008) (<HOLDING>). In Reyes, Judge Snyder followed Magistrate
holding that plaintiff could not pursue section 521 claim on the basis of allegations that defendants used force to interfere with his right to be free from bodily restraint or harm holding that the right to be free from the use of excessive force has been well established since 1976 holding that under  521 the coercive force applied against a plaintiff must result in an interference with a separate constitutional or statutory right and it is not sufficient that the right interfered with is the right to be free of the force or threat of force that was applied holding that a students right to bodily integrity under the fourteenth amendment encompasses a students right to be free from sexual assaults by his or her teachers holding that a conflict of interest independent of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel  constitute cause where the conflict caused the attorney to interfere with the petitioners right to pursue his  1 claim