618 F. App'x 917
9th Cir.2015Background
- Cornejo, a gang member with an outstanding warrant, fled from police during a 2007 traffic stop and was beaten.
- Officers failed to seek medical care promptly; Cornejo became unresponsive and died before medical help arrived.
- Cornejo’s children, as successors in interest, sued for § 1983 violations and state-law claims of battery, negligence, and wrongful death.
- A jury found liability for excessive force and denial of medical care under the Fourth Amendment, and for battery, negligence, and wrongful death.
- Defendants argued lack of Article III standing, potential damages reduction for comparative negligence, and qualified immunity; these were challenged on appeal.
- California law provides that a decedent’s § 1983 claim passes to the decedent’s successors in interest, who receive the litigation proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of successors to §1983 claim | Children have Article III standing as successors in interest. | Estate representative should bring the claim; children lack standing. | Children have Article III standing; standing waiver applies to prudential issues. |
| Wrongful death damages and comparative negligence | Full damages awarded should stand; no apportionment. | Damages should be reduced for Cornejo's negligence. | Issue waived; no reduction applied. |
| Qualified immunity for failure to provide medical care | Defendants violated clearly established rights by delaying medical care. | Either no violation or not clearly established. | Defendants not entitled to qualified immunity; rights clearly established. |
| Constitutional standard for post-arrest medical care | Fourth Amendment requires objectively reasonable post-arrest medical care until seizure ends. | Standard tied to Deliberate indifference under Fourteenth Amendment. | Post-arrest medical care is Fourth Amendment, requiring prompt medical attention. |
| Fair notice under the Fourth Amendment | Conduct violated clearly established law under Tatum. | Not clearly established or not applicable. | Conduct violated clearly established rights; fair notice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 F.3d 269 (U.S. 2008) (assignees have Article III standing)
- Pershing Park Villas Homeowners Ass'n v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 219 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2000) (prudential standing waived if not raised below)
- United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1990) (amendment of pleadings can cure standing issues)
- Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2006) (post-arrest medical care must be provided promptly)
- Maddox v. City of Los Angeles, 792 F.2d 1408 (9th Cir. 1986) (guide to medical care duty in arrests)
- Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2001) (seizure duration relevant to medical care duty)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (fair notice standard in §1983 cases)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (principles of fair notice and clearly established law)
- C.B. v. City of Sonora, 769 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2014) (reaffirmation of qualified immunity standards)