Cristobal Hernandez, Jr. v. Janice Brewer
658 F. App'x 837
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Cristobal Hernandez, Jr. sued Pinal County officials raising 22 claims arising from traffic stops and related events; the district court disposed of all claims and Hernandez appealed.
- Central factual events include a traffic stop for a broken taillight, an officer (Deputy Parry) asking Hernandez to “hold on,” deployment/use of a police dog that alerted at the driver’s door, and a subsequent search of Hernandez’s vehicle.
- The district court dismissed several claims for failure to meet pleading standards and granted summary judgment to Deputy Parry on the Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment § 1983 claim (count 7), including on qualified immunity grounds.
- The district court dismissed other federal and state claims (including counts 13–17) as either time-barred or conclusory under Iqbal/Twombly; it also declined to address some discovery complaints due to Hernandez’s procedural failures.
- Hernandez sought relief for alleged fraud on the court and moved for leave to amend and change venue; the district court denied relief, and the Ninth Circuit reviewed those denials on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1983 Fourth/Fourteenth claim survives against Pinal County defendants for the traffic stop/search | Hernandez contended stops/searches violated his constitutional rights | Defendants argued the pleadings were conclusory and Deputy Parry had lawful basis for stop and search | Dismissed as to most defendants for conclusory pleading; summary judgment for Parry affirmed — stop lawful, dog alert gave probable cause, no arrest occurred |
| Whether Deputy Parry unreasonably prolonged stop or converted it into an arrest | Hernandez argued requests and dog deployment unlawfully prolonged/converted stop | Parry argued reasonable suspicion for stop (broken taillight), brief hold was not prolongation, dog alert provided probable cause | Court held no unreasonable prolongation, no arrest conversion, and dog alert justified search; qualified immunity applied |
| Whether several claims (18 U.S.C. § 961, negligence, gross negligence) survived pleading standards | Hernandez asserted statutory and state tort claims related to the incidents | Defendants argued claims were conclusory and failed Iqbal/Twombly pleading requirements | Court dismissed these claims for failure to state facts beyond conclusory allegations |
| Whether defamation/libel/false light and emotional distress claims are timely | Hernandez advanced those state-law claims | Defendants asserted statute of limitations bars them under Arizona law | Court held claims time-barred and dismissed |
| Whether discovery withholding, fraud on the court, leave to amend, and venue motions warranted relief | Hernandez alleged discovery abuses, fraud on the court, sought to amend complaint and change venue | Defendants pointed to procedural noncompliance and insufficient evidence of fraud; opposed amendment/venue change | Court refused further discovery relief for procedural failures, declined to vacate judgments for fraud (no clear and convincing proof), and properly denied leave to amend and venue change; Ninth Circuit affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards require factual allegations, not conclusory statements)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- United States v. Gutierrez-Mederos, 965 F.2d 800 (reasonable suspicion for traffic stops)
- Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987 (brief detention vs. arrest analysis)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (drug-sniffing dogs during lawful traffic stops do not violate Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Ibarra, 345 F.3d 711 (dog alert can establish probable cause to search vehicle)
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (qualified immunity principles)
- United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415 (fraud on the court requires clear and convincing proof)
- Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757 (appellate review of district-court discovery handling)
- Cruz v. Int’l Collection Corp., 673 F.3d 991 (issues not argued in opening brief are forfeited)