Adalberto Flores-Haro v. Stephen Slade
686 F. App'x 454
9th Cir.2017Background
- Officers planned a warrant service on a neighbor’s home and positioned themselves around Adalberto Flores‑Haro’s property without his knowledge.
- Flores‑Haro confronted shadowy figures outside his home and was shot multiple times by officers; he was armed but (viewing evidence favorably to him) never pointed or fired his gun at officers.
- In state court Flores‑Haro entered a no contest plea to menacing and reckless endangerment after the prosecutor proffered a factual basis stating Flores‑Haro pointed and fired at officers; the plea did not require Flores‑Haro to stipulate to that factual basis.
- Flores‑Haro brought a federal § 1983 suit for excessive force and state tort claims (battery, negligence, IIED) in federal court.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim and asserting issue preclusion (and alternatively Heck) to bar civil claims based on the no contest plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for officers on § 1983 excessive force claim | Flores‑Haro: officers used clearly unreasonable, excessive force when they shot him though he did not point/fire at them | Officers: force was reasonable under the circumstances; at minimum the law was not clearly established | Held: Qualified immunity applies; any constitutional violation was not clearly established under particularized precedent |
| Applicability of Heck v. Humphrey to bar § 1983 claim | Flores‑Haro: Heck should not bar his federal claim | Defendants: Heck bars claims that would imply invalidity of convictions based on the plea | Held: Court did not decide Heck because qualified immunity disposed of § 1983 claim; declined to extend Heck to Oregon torts without state authority |
| Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) based on no contest plea | Flores‑Haro: his civil claims are not precluded because the plea’s factual basis was not essential/actually litigated | Defendants: the plea and its factual basis preclude civil claims about the same facts (officers’ fear/imminent danger) | Held: Issue preclusion fails — the element of being "essential to a final decision on the merits" is not satisfied for the menacing/reckless endangerment convictions |
| Preclusive effect of factual basis in a no contest plea | Flores‑Haro: factual proffer in plea does not automatically preclude later civil claims | Defendants: the prosecutor’s factual basis should have preclusive effect | Held: Court did not decide whether factual bases of no contest pleas are "actually litigated"; refused to apply preclusion here because issue was not essential |
Key Cases Cited
- Knox v. Southwest Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment denial)
- Garcia v. County of Merced, 639 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir.) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant on summary judgment)
- C.V. v. City of Anaheim, 823 F.3d 1252 (9th Cir.) (two‑step qualified immunity framework)
- Lal v. California, 746 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir.) (qualified immunity standard discussion)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (clearly established standard quoted)
- Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (2012) (clearly established right standard)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (need for particularized precedent; avoid broad generalizations)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (qualified immunity principles)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clearly established law must be particularized)
- City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765 (2015) (not unreasonable "beyond debate" standard)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established inquiry)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive force violates Fourth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force use standards)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (bar on claims that would invalidate convictions)