Arvizu v. City of Fresno, 1:21-cv-00890

Jorge Arvizu sued Fresno police officers Hammon and Alvarado under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force after Officer Hammon fatally shot his wife, Krystal Arvizu, during a domestic disturbance call in June 2019.
The incident began when Arvizu reported his wife was combative, possibly armed, experiencing a mental health crisis, and locked in a bedroom; officers were dispatched to the scene.
Upon arrival, officers attempted to communicate with Krystal, who expressed suicidal statements, and forced open her bedroom door. She responded violently, striking the door with an axe, then rushed officers with a knife.
Officer Hammon shot Krystal as she charged the officers with the knife; events were captured on body-worn cameras.
Plaintiff argued officers failed to properly de-escalate a mental health crisis and created the danger that led to deadly force. Defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity.
The Court granted summary judgment for the officers, finding their actions objectively reasonable and protected by qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Was deadly force excessive under Fourth Amendment?	Officers failed to de-escalate; created the confrontation; force not necessary.	Force was objectively reasonable due to the immediate threat posed by Krystal.	Use of deadly force was objectively reasonable.
Did substance of Graham v. Connor factors weigh against officers?	Krystal was mentally ill, officers should have used less intrusive means; situation escalated too quickly.	Officer faced imminent threat from armed suspect; tried to retreat; all factors favored defense.	All Graham factors favored officer; no violation.
Was there a violation of clearly established law?	Similar cases prohibited force when officers' poor tactics created danger.	No closely analogous precedent prohibited officer’s actions in this factual scenario.	No clearly established law violated; qualified immunity applied.
Supervisory liability of Sgt. Alvarado	Alvarado failed to supervise, did not follow crisis protocols, actions were causally connected.	No personal involvement or causal connection; Hammon’s actions constitutional.	No liability; Hammon’s conduct was not unconstitutional.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness standard governs excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force may only be used if the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury)
City & Cnty. of San Francisco, Calif. v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600 (2015) (qualified immunity analysis requires specific precedent for clearly established law)
Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (deadly force justified if suspect threatens officers with a weapon)
Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010) (use of force evaluated by totality of circumstances under Graham)
Vos v. City of Newport Beach, 892 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2018) (officers’ tactics leading to use of force can be considered in the reasonableness analysis)
S.R. Nehad v. Browder, 929 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2019) (pre-shooting conduct and potential officer-created danger factored into Fourth Amendment analysis)