Deepak Vohra v. City of Placentia
683 F. App'x 564
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Vohra (plaintiff) was stopped by Officer Pascarella for driving without a front license plate; Vohra had previously pled guilty to a Vehicle Code § 5200(a) infraction.
- During the stop, Pascarella arrested Vohra for misdemeanor evading an officer in violation of Cal. Veh. Code § 2800.1(a).
- The key factual dispute is when Pascarella activated his lights/siren: Pascarella says near Orangethorpe and Miller; Vohra says only when approaching Orangethorpe and Rose.
- Vohra alleges the arrest lacked probable cause and was retaliatory for his prior written complaints to the police chief; Pascarella denies prior contact or knowledge of those complaints.
- Procedural posture: district court granted summary judgment to Pascarella on several claims; Ninth Circuit reversed as to false arrest and First Amendment retaliation, affirmed as to equal protection, supervisory liability (Chief Anderson), and municipal liability (City of Placentia), and remanded on the reversed claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck bars challenge to initial traffic stop | Vohra sought to challenge stop | Pascarella relied on Vohra's guilty plea to §5200(a) | Heck bars challenge to stop based on that conviction; claim dismissed |
| Whether there was probable cause for arrest for evading (§2800.1(a)) | Vohra: no probable cause because lights/siren were not activated before he pulled forward | Pascarella: had probable cause—activated lights/siren earlier | Genuine dispute about when siren activated; summary judgment improper on false arrest |
| Qualified immunity for false arrest claim | Vohra: arrest violated clearly established rights | Pascarella: entitled to immunity | No immunity; material facts viewed for Vohra show clearly established violation |
| First Amendment retaliation (causation and chilling) | Vohra: arrest was retaliatory for his complaints; officer said comment about writing another letter | Pascarella: unaware of complaints; arrest not retaliatory | Summary judgment improper; jury could find but-for causation and chilling; no qualified immunity |
| Equal protection (selective enforcement) | Vohra: race-based selective enforcement | Defendants: no evidence of similarly situated persons treated differently | No evidence of similarly situated comparators; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Supervisory and municipal liability | Vohra: Chief/City liable for policies or acquiescence | Defendants: no personal involvement or policy evidence | Dismissal of Chief Anderson and summary judgment for City affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (Bars collateral attack on conviction that would undermine its validity)
- Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989 (Declaring when a plaintiff's declaration is not a sham)
- Taylor v. Barkes, 135 S. Ct. 2042 (Qualified immunity framework restated)
- Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188 (First Amendment retaliation causation and qualified immunity)
- Beck v. City of Upland, 527 F.3d 853 (Arrest without probable cause can establish chill element)
- People v. Hudson, 136 P.3d 168 (Elements required for misdemeanor evasion in California)
- Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (Proof required for selective-prosecution/equal protection claims)
- Mackinney v. Nielsen, 69 F.3d 1002 (Standards for supervisor liability under § 1983)
- Velazquez v. City of Long Beach, 793 F.3d 1010 (Municipal liability requires policy or custom)