Geraldine Nicholson v. Miguel Gutierrez
935 F.3d 685
9th Cir.2019Background
- On Feb. 10, 2015, four teenagers (including minors J.N.G. and J.H.) were in an alley near school; Michael Sanders held a plastic Airsoft replica gun with an orange tip while they listened to music.
- LAPD Officers Gutierrez (passenger) and Amaral (driver) in an unmarked car approached after Gutierrez observed someone he believed was pointing a gun; Gutierrez ran into the alley without conferring with Amaral.
- Gutierrez fired multiple shots within seconds of entering the alley; one bullet struck J.N.G. in the back. Officers then detained and handcuffed the teenagers for over five hours while investigating.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment (unlawful arrest/excessive force/prolonged detention) and Fourteenth Amendment (substantive due process) violations; district court denied qualified immunity to Gutierrez on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed denial of qualified immunity, assuming plaintiffs’ version of disputed facts for purposes of the immunity inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prolonged detention and handcuffing after the shooting violated the Fourth Amendment | Prolonged five-hour detention and continuous handcuffing occurred after any probable cause dissipated and thus constituted unlawful seizure and excessive force | Gutierrez contends he was separated/monitored after initial handcuffing and thus not responsible for the continued detention | Court: Denied qualified immunity as to the Fourth Amendment; a reasonable jury could find Gutierrez integrally participated in the unlawful prolonged detention and handcuffing |
| Whether Gutierrez’s initial shooting violated the Fourth Amendment | (Plaintiffs did not press this issue on appeal) | Gutierrez argued shooting was aimed at Sanders (perceived threat) and not a seizure of others | Not before the court on this appeal (district court previously granted summary judgment for defendants on this ground) |
| Whether the shooting violated the Fourteenth Amendment (substantive due process) | Shooting showed deliberate indifference / "shocks the conscience" because Gutierrez rushed in, did not consult partner, and fired on a group of school-aged youths, one of whom was hit | Gutierrez argued deliberation was impractical (invoking an "intent to harm" standard) and, alternatively, that plaintiffs point to no controlling precedent making his conduct clearly unlawful | Court: On the facts viewed for plaintiffs, the shooting could shock the conscience (constitutional violation), but qualified immunity applies because the Fourteenth Amendment violation was not clearly established by controlling precedent |
| Whether the Fourteenth Amendment right was clearly established | Plaintiffs argued existing Fourth Amendment excessive-force cases and other precedent showed the unlawfulness was clear | Gutierrez argued no circuit or Supreme Court precedent squarely governed an accidental bystander shooting under the Fourteenth Amendment | Court: Denied that the law was clearly established; reversed district court on qualified immunity for the Fourteenth Amendment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (U.S. 2018) (courts must avoid defining clearly established law at a high level of generality; officers entitled to qualified immunity absent controlling precedent squarely governing facts)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (U.S. 2014) (interlocutory review of qualified immunity denials; Fourth Amendment excessive-force principles)
- Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (application of "intent to harm" standard in high-speed pursuit context)
- Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (substantive due process "shocks the conscience" framework)
- Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (rapidly escalating confrontation can preclude deliberation)
- Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365 (9th Cir. 1998) (extreme emergency/gunfight context where deliberation is impractical)
- Boyd v. Benton County, 374 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2004) (integral participation theory: officers jointly liable where each participated in operation leading to violation)
- Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292 (9th Cir. 1996) (officer liability on theory of integral participation)