Estate of Hernandez-Rojas ex rel. Hernandez v. United States, 62 F. Supp. 3d 1169

Plaintiffs (Estate of Anastacio Hernandez-Roja) filed the third amended complaint, asserting fourteen causes of action: five Bivens retaliation claims and nine FTCA/ATCA claims.
Initial proceedings used a star numbering system for defendants; the court later identified defendants by name, with a focus on individual agents involved in the May 2010 arrest and subsequent handling at Whiskey 2.
Allegations describe a sequence where Anastacio was detained after crossing near the border, subjected to force by multiple agents, including slaps, batons, a Taser, and physical restraint, culminating in his death and multiple autopsy findings of homicide.
Medical examiners attributed death to factors including lack of oxygen and heart-related issues, with autopsy reports detailing extensive injuries and supporting a homicide finding.
The court’s order addresses motions for summary judgment by the individual defendants, discusses qualified immunity, and sets a schedule for a mandatory settlement conference.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the First Amendment retaliation claim survives qualified immunity	Anastacio's speech (requests for medical care) and complaints were protected, and retaliatory acts chilled First Amendment rights.	Some force claims should be analyzed under Fourth Amendment standards; retaliation merits dismissal on different grounds.	Denied summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim for all defendants.
Whether excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment survive	Video and testimony show repeated force against a handcuffed, nonresisting, unarmed decedent.	Balance of Graham factors and reasonableness of officer actions requires resolution by a factfinder.	Denied summary judgment; material disputes remain; excessive force claims proceed to trial.
Whether the right of familial association was violated	Officers’ actions deprived decedent’s children of companionship, violating Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests.	Qualified immunity and standard of culpability may shield officers depending on circumstances.	Denied summary judgment; plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence to support associational claims.
Whether supervisors failed to supervise or intervene	Supervisors could have intervened and failed to do so, contributing to constitutional violations.	No knowledge of earlier incidents; no opportunity to intervene; no liability for supervision	Denied summary judgment; issues of fact remain as to supervision/intervention.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (analyzes excessive force claims under Fourth Amendment; objective reasonableness standard)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework)
Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2013) (retaliation claims may chill protected First Amendment activity)
Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990) (police may not punish exercising First Amendment rights)
Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir. 2006) (retaliation standard requires causal link and chill)
Bryan v. MacPherson, 608 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2010) (use of taser in certain contexts not clearly established as of 2005)
Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 843 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2016) (training materials and positional restraint considerations in excessive force)
Krechman v. County of Riverside, 723 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2013) (substantial factor causation in police-civilian encounters)
Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir. 2001) (warnings and Graham balancing in force cases)
Solis v. County of Los Angeles, 514 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2008) (deliberate indifference standard for due process in certain contexts)