Chelsey Hayes v. County of San Diego
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23939
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Chelsey Hayes, the decedent Shane Hayes’s daughter, sued Deputies King and Geer and San Diego County under §1983 and state negligent wrongful death and negligent hiring, training, and supervision claims after Hayes was shot and killed in his home on September 17, 2006.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the deputies and the County on all claims; Chelsey Hayes was found to have standing for survival claims but the court remained uncertain about standing for the Fourth Amendment survival claims.
- The police entered Hayes’s home based on concerns Hayes might harm himself; no guns were observed and Hayes’s prior knife usage and intoxication were not fully established for the officers before entry.
- Hayes raised a knife inside the home; Deputy King ordered him to show his hands, Hayes raised both hands with the knife, and both deputies fired four shots within about four seconds, prompting the officers’ defense claims of self-defense.
- The majority reversed in part and remanded, holding that California’s pre-shooting conduct is part of the totality of circumstances and that the district court should address standing and preshooting duty per Hayes II; the court affirmed the §1983 Fourteenth Amendment claim and a Monell claim on that basis, but reversed the finding of objective reasonableness for the use of force and remanded for further proceedings on negligent wrongful death.
- A concurrence argued that no excessive force was used and urged affirmance of the district court’s summary judgment, disagreeing with the majority’s remand related to preshooting conduct under Hayes II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to assert survival claims | Chelsey is decedent's successor in interest and may pursue survival claims. | California §377.30/§377.32 requirements and proper designation as personal representative or successor in interest are not clearly satisfied. | Remanded to determine standing for survival claims (Fourth Amendment). |
| Fourteenth Amendment due process viability | Deputies’ conduct shocks the conscience by their actions in the totality of circumstances. | Snap judgment under Graham and lack of deliberate indifference; no due process violation. | Affirmed dismissal of due process claim; no §1983 Fourteenth Amendment violation established. |
| Negligent wrongful death and preshooting duty | Deputies owed reasonable-care duty for preshooting conduct and failed to gather information or obtain PERT assistance. | District court properly found no preshooting duty under applicable California law at the time; post Hayes II clarifies duty extends to preshooting conduct. | Reversed and remanded to reconsider negligent wrongful death claim in light of Hayes II clarifications. |
| Objective reasonableness of force | Hayes’s knife and advancing posture created a potential threat, but warnings and less-lethal options were feasible; forced immediate deadly force may be unreasonable. | Immediate threat to officer safety justified deadly force; district court’s view allows for no warning due to rapid events. | Reversed district court’s conclusion that force was objectively reasonable; factual questions remain for jury after totality of circumstances. |
| Monell liability based on Fourth Amendment violations | County responsibility for policy-driven constitutional violations. | No constitutional violation proven; Monell liability not supported. | Remand on standing for Fourth Amendment survival claims; Monell liability may be reconsidered if standing is established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness of force judged from officer on scene perspective; totality of circumstances)
- Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (second Graham factor. importance of threat assessment)
- Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 84 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1996) (deadly force justified when suspect threatens with weapon; caution about on-scene perspective)
- Hayes II, 57 Cal.4th 622, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 684, 305 P.3d 252 (Cal. 2013) (preshooting conduct included in totality of circumstances for reasonableness; duty extends beyond shooting)
- Hayes, Hayes v. County of San Diego, 658 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2011) (certified question on preshooting duty; remanded for California Supreme Court action)
- Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365 (9th Cir. 1998) (standing for survival actions; burden on state-law requirements)
- Munoz v. Olin, 24 Cal.3d 629 (Cal. 1979) (officer duty to use reasonable care in employing deadly force)