Hayes v. County of San Diego
658 F.3d 867
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Shane Hayes was shot and killed by San Diego County Sheriff's Deputies King and Geer on September 17, 2006 inside Hayes's home.
- Chelsey Hayes, Hayes's daughter, sued the deputies and the County under §1983 for Fourth Amendment violations and Fourteenth Amendment rights, plus state law claims for wrongful death and negligent hiring/training/supervision.
- The district court granted summary judgment on all claims except negligent hiring; Chelsey appeals.
- At entry, King and Geer entered with guns holstered; King carried a Taser and used a flashlight as an improvised tool.
- Hayes raised a knife with the knife tip down when ordered to show his hands; deputies fired four times as Hayes approached from 6–8 feet away.
- Liability theories discussed include survival standing, due process adequacy, Monell municipal liability, preshoot negligence, and use of deadly force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to assert survival claims | Chelsey is decedent's successor in interest under §377.30 | Chelsey lacks personal representative/status to sue survival claims | Remand to determine Chelsey's standing for survival claims |
| Fourteenth Amendment due process | Deputies' actions shock conscience under purpose-to-harm standard | Deliberate indifference standard should apply; actions were not purpose to harm | Applying purpose-to-harm standard; summary judgment on due process affirmed |
| Monell municipal liability | County liable for constitutional violations | No constitutional violation; no Monell basis | Remanded for standing on Fourth Amendment survival claims; Monell affirmed on Fourteenth basis; remanded on standing |
| Negligent wrongful death (preshoot and use of deadly force) | Preshoot conduct can give rise to duty; deadly force may be negligent | No preshoot duty; deadly force objective reasonableness under Graham | Reverse in part: preshoot duty recognized; remand for standard of care; keep use-of-force analysis for jury; negligent death claim revived |
| Use of deadly force (objective reasonableness under state law) | Hayes's movement toward officers with a knife supports deadly force as unreasonable | Reasonable under totality of circumstances; imminent threat justifies force | Not clearly established as reasonable; fact issues exist; remand for trial on reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness of force judged from officer's perspective at the scene)
- Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc addressing reasonableness and second Graham factor)
- Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 84 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1996) (deadly force justified when suspect threatens officer with weapon)
- Munoz v. City of Olin, 24 Cal.3d 629 (Cal. 1979) (duty of care for officers’ use of deadly force recognized)
- City of Union City v. Superior Court, 120 Cal.App.4th 1094 (Cal. App. 2004) (preshooting duty and trigger for negligent liability discussed)
- Hernandez v. City of Pomona, 46 Cal.4th 501 (Cal. 2009) (collateral estoppel on federal judgment; preshooting duty discussion implied)
- Adams v. City of Fremont, 68 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. App. 1999) (preshooting duty analysis among California intermediate courts)
- Moreland v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 159 F.3d 365 (9th Cir. 1998) (survivor standing and constitutional rights under §1983)
- Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (due process shock standard for deprivation of companionship)