Hayes v. County of San Diego
638 F.3d 688
9th Cir.2011Background
- Shane Hayes was shot and killed by San Diego County Deputies King and Geer inside Hayes's home after a domestic disturbance call on September 17, 2006.
- Hayes's minor daughter Chelsey Hayes sued the deputies and the County for federal § 1983 claims and state-law claims for negligent wrongful death and negligent hiring/training/supervision.
- Deputies entered Hayes's residence to check on welfare based on concerns of potential self-harm, with guns holstered and a Taser present.
- Hayes revealed a large knife in his right hand as he approached, and the deputies fired a total of six shots within seconds of Hayes raising his hands.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims, and Chelsey appealed, raising standing for survival claims and other theories.
- The court remanded and decided several issues, including standing to pursue survival claims and the viability of preshooting negligence and negligent use of force claims.
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 proper personal representative/standards to sue survival claims. | Remanded to determine Chelsey's standing to assert survival claims. |
| Fourteenth Amendment due process claim viability | Deprivations of companionship/relationship with father support a due process claim. | Officers' actions were not deliberate indifference; shielded by reasonableness. | Purpose-to-harm standard applies; claims upheld to extent of deliberate indifference, otherwise rejected. |
| Monell claim based on alleged Fourth Amendment violations | County liability for unconstitutional practices under § 1983. | No constitutional violation found; no Monell liability. | Remanded on standing; Monell affirmed regarding Fourteenth Amendment claims; remanded for standing on Fourth Amendment survival claims. |
| Negligent wrongful death and preshooting duty under California law | Deputies owed a duty for preshooting conduct; Hernandez compels liability. | District court properly held no preshooting duty; Hernandez changes applicable law. | Remanded to assess preshooting duty and breach; negligence claim reinstated for further proceedings. |
| Use of deadly force – objective reasonableness under California law | Hayes did not pose an immediate threat; lack of warning or time to comply. | Hayes's movement toward officers with a knife justifies deadly force; reasonable under Graham and Reynolds. | Summary judgment reversed as to negligence theory; remanded for factual determination on reasonableness of force. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365 (9th Cir.1998) (survival action standards in § 1983 cases)
- Schwarder v. United States, 974 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir.1992) (distinguishes wrongful death from survival actions)
- Davis v. Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co., 27 F.3d 426 (9th Cir.1994) (distinction between survival and wrongful death recoveries)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness of force evaluated from officer's perspective on scene)
- Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 84 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.1996) (deadly force justified when suspect threatens with weapon; caution about immediacy)
- Munoz v. City of Union City, 24 Cal.3d 629 (Cal. 1979) (duty of care in use of deadly force contexts; preshooting conduct later reconsidered)
- Hernandez v. City of Pomona, 46 Cal.4th 501 (Cal. 2009) (collateral estoppel in federal judgment affecting related state claims; preshooting duty discussion)
- City of Union City, 120 Cal.App.4th 1077 (Cal. App. 2004) (preshooting duty limited to certain contexts; district court relied on it)
- Adams v. City of Fremont, 68 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. App. 1999) (preshooting duty; factors for duty analysis)