C v. Ex Rel. Villegas v. City of Anaheim
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9561
9th Cir.2016Background
- On Jan. 7, 2012, Anaheim officers responded to a 911 report of a suspected armed drug dealer in an apartment complex; four officers (including Bennallack and Heitmann) approached in formation.
- Officers encountered Tristan Rosal (who raised his hands) and Bernie Villegas standing by a wall near a long gun that appeared to be a shotgun (later shown to be an unmarked BB gun).
- Officers commanded hands up; accounts differ on whether Villegas was already holding the gun or grabbed it from the wall, and whether he was complying when ordered to drop the gun.
- Officer Bennallack fired five times about one second after Villegas moved the gun, killing Villegas; other officers gave varying descriptions of the gun’s position and Villegas’s motion and expression.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment excessive force) and state-law negligence/wrongful-death claims; district court granted summary judgment to defendants on federal and state claims.
- Ninth Circuit: affirmed summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim (qualified immunity), but reversed summary judgment on state-law claims and remanded because disputed facts could make deadly force unreasonable under state law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Bennallack’s use of deadly force a Fourth Amendment violation? | Bennallack shot without warning while Villegas was complying or not posing an immediate threat. | Officer reasonably believed Villegas posed an immediate threat when he moved/grabbed a long gun. | Triable factual disputes exist, but court held no Fourth Amendment violation as clearly established law; qualified immunity applies. |
| Is qualified immunity available to Bennallack? | Qualified immunity should not shield clearly excessive force when facts viewed for plaintiff show no immediate threat. | No clearly established precedent put officer on notice that conduct was unconstitutional. | Yes; not clearly established on Jan. 7, 2012, that shooting under these circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment. |
| Was summary judgment proper on excessive force under Graham? | No — factual disputes (gun position, commands, timing, compliance) preclude deciding reasonableness as a matter of law. | The officer’s perspective justified force; summary judgment appropriate. | Court found disputes sufficient to reverse district court’s reasoning but nonetheless affirmed due to qualified immunity. |
| Are defendants immune from state-law tort claims? | Federal qualified immunity does not bar state-law claims; factual disputes mean those claims must proceed. | Defendants argued conduct was objectively reasonable under state law too. | Reversed grant of summary judgment on state-law claims and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (framework for evaluating excessive force under the Fourth Amendment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
- Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789 (summary judgment in officer-shooting cases should be rare; relevance when only non-officer witness is deceased)
- Glenn v. Washington County, 673 F.3d 864 (de novo review of summary judgment and qualified immunity analysis)
- George v. Morris, 736 F.3d 829 (Graham factors and importance of immediate-threat inquiry)
- Lal v. California, 746 F.3d 1112 (qualified immunity two-step test application)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework discretion on prongs)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity where precedent did not squarely govern officer’s conduct)
- Blanford v. Sacramento County, 406 F.3d 1110 (qualified immunity for use of deadly force against person with edged weapon where no fair warning existed)
- Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 724 F.3d 1159 (federal qualified immunity does not extend to California state tort claims)
- Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063 (same principle regarding state-law claims)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity inquiry must consider specific context)
- Hayes v. County of San Diego, 305 P.3d 252 (California law on negligence is broader than federal Fourth Amendment law)