Guadalupe Guerrero v. United States
705 F. App'x 663
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Guadalupe Guerrero brought a wrongful-death FTCA suit after Agent Tidwell shot and killed LaMadrid during a border enforcement incident.
- District court entered judgment for the United States; Guerrero appealed to the Ninth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- Facts in dispute concerned whether LaMadrid (a third party) was throwing large rocks at Agent Tidwell and whether those rocks created a life‑threatening risk.
- Tidwell invoked Arizona's justification (self-defense) statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-405(A), arguing deadly force was necessary to protect himself from unlawful deadly physical force.
- Guerrero argued the justification defense was unavailable because Arizona law bars justification when an actor recklessly injures an innocent third party, and she also alleged spoliation/conspiracy to conceal evidence.
- The district court credited law‑enforcement testimony that large rocks (some as big as softballs and a brick) were hurled at Tidwell at high speed and found Tidwell’s use of deadly force justified; it also rejected the spoliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of Arizona justification defense in civil FTCA suit | Guerrero: justification defense should be unavailable because statute excludes it when an actor recklessly injures/ kills an innocent third party | United States/Tidwell: Arizona justification statute has no civil exception and applies to Tidwell | Affirmed — justification defense available in civil context; criminal exception does not apply |
| Application of justification to facts | Guerrero: even if available, Tidwell acted recklessly and LaMadrid was an "innocent third person" so defense fails | United States: district court credibly found LaMadrid was throwing dangerous rocks and Tidwell reasonably believed deadly force was necessary | Affirmed — district court did not clearly err; evidence supports finding deadly force was reasonable |
| Negligent self‑placement defense | Guerrero: Tidwell negligently put himself in harm’s way, barring justification | United States: Arizona law does not bar justification for mere negligence absent provocation | Affirmed — no Arizona statute/case bars justification for negligent placement here |
| Spoliation/conspiracy to conceal evidence | Guerrero: agencies conspired to hide evidence, warranting relief | United States: insufficient proof of conspiracy or spoliation | Affirmed — plaintiff presented no plausible evidence of spoliation/conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nelson, 137 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1998) (credibility determinations of witness testimony reviewed for clear error)
- Akiona v. United States, 938 F.2d 158 (9th Cir. 1991) (standards for spoliation and evidentiary sanctions)
AFFIRMED.