648 F. App'x 657
9th Cir.2016Background
- Rafael Olivas threatened to kill police, approached officers Christopher Grivas and David Hager wielding a knife, and was shot and killed by the officers.
- Alma Chavez sued individually and as special administratrix of Olivas’s estate, asserting federal Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims, a Fourteenth Amendment claim for interference with familial relations, and Monell municipal-liability claims against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD).
- District court granted summary judgment to LVMPD and the officers; Chavez appealed. The Ninth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- The district court found officers entitled to qualified immunity, concluding no clearly established law put the constitutional question beyond debate regarding the use of deadly force or handcuffing after shooting.
- The court also held Chavez failed to show officers acted with a purpose to harm unrelated to law enforcement (required for Fourteenth Amendment claim given the rapidly escalating situation).
- The court found insufficient evidence to support a Monell claim that LVMPD had a policy or custom tolerating constitutional violations; state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity — deadly force (Fourth Amendment) | Chavez: shooting was excessive force; officers violated Olivas’s Fourth Amendment rights | Officers: Olivas threatened to kill police and approached with a knife; force was reasonable and officers are entitled to qualified immunity | Court: Qualified immunity affirmed — no clearly established law would have made using deadly force in these facts clearly unconstitutional |
| Qualified immunity — handcuffing after shooting | Chavez: handcuffing a mortally wounded Olivas was excessive force | Officers: handcuffing after shooting was objectively reasonable under circumstances; not clearly established as unconstitutional | Court: Qualified immunity affirmed — no precedent clearly established handcuffing under these facts was unconstitutional |
| Fourteenth Amendment — interference with familial relations | Chavez: officers’ conduct interfered with familial relationship and violated substantive due process | Officers: encounter was rapidly escalating; plaintiff must show purpose to harm unrelated to legitimate law enforcement | Court: Claim fails — Chavez did not show officers acted with improper/malicious motive; required showing of purpose to harm not met |
| Monell municipal liability | Chavez: LVMPD failed to properly implement its use-of-force policy and had a custom of not scrutinizing force | LVMPD: policies were constitutional; no evidence of a formal policy or widespread practice tolerating violations | Court: Claim fails — insufficient evidence of a policy or widespread practice; later policy revisions insufficient to show prior municipal liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (permitting courts to decide qualified immunity without first deciding constitutional violation)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law requires precedent placing the question beyond debate)
- Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir.) (substantive due process familial-interference claim requires purpose to harm in rapidly evolving incidents)
- Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires a policy, custom, or practice causing constitutional violation)
- Nadell v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 268 F.3d 924 (9th Cir.) (insufficient evidence of a formal policy or widespread practice can defeat Monell claim)
- Parra v. PacifiCare of Ariz., Inc., 715 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir.) (district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after federal claims are dismissed)