Jairo Cervantes Ramirez v. Shelly Zimmerman, 20-56117

Background

Five plaintiffs were arrested following a May 27, 2016 protest subject to a dispersal order; they sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First and Fourth Amendment claims), Monell, and various state-law claims including the Ralph Civil Rights Act.
Plaintiffs alleged Chief of Police Shelley Zimmerman ratified unconstitutional conduct by subordinate officers (Monell ratification theory).
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, dismissed several state-law claims, denied leave to amend to add a viewpoint-discrimination claim and to add three officers, and denied additional discovery and sanctions; plaintiffs appealed.
Plaintiffs settled with county/Sheriff defendants during the litigation, rendering related claims moot.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it found no evidence of Zimmerman ratification, held officers entitled to qualified immunity on federal claims, and rejected plaintiffs’ other procedural and state-law arguments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Monell ratification by Chief Zimmerman	Zimmerman approved or ratified officers' unconstitutional conduct	No evidence Zimmerman knew of and approved a constitutional violation	Affirmed dismissal — no factual showing of ratification or approval by policymaker
Qualified immunity (Fourth Amendment/arrests)	Arrests violated Fourth Amendment; conduct was clearly unlawful	Officers are entitled to qualified immunity; plaintiffs forfeited some immunity arguments	Affirmed — officers shielded by qualified immunity; plaintiffs failed to show clearly established law
Qualified immunity (First Amendment) / viewpoint discrimination	Plaintiffs assert viewpoint discrimination at summary judgment	No clearly established law on point; district court denied leave to amend to add viewpoint theory	Affirmed — qualified immunity applies; viewpoint claim not considered because operative complaint lacked it
Ralph Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7)	Plaintiffs argued Ralph Act covers the conduct	District court: no evidence of a ‘‘physical, destructive act’’ beyond force application	Affirmed — plaintiffs did not challenge district court’s dismissal on appeal
Denial of leave to amend to add three officers	Plaintiffs sought to add officers after close of discovery	Defendants noted plaintiffs knew of officers’ roles long before amendment attempt	Affirmed — denial not an abuse of discretion given timing and prior notice
Denial of additional discovery after consolidation	Sought more discovery to support claims	Plaintiffs failed to show how reopening discovery would help their case	Affirmed — plaintiffs did not show actual and substantial prejudice
Sanctions under Rule 37	Plaintiffs urged the district court should sanction defendants	Plaintiffs did not adequately brief or preserve the argument	Affirmed — argument forfeited/not preserved

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires a policy, custom, or ratification)
Christie v. Iopa, 176 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir.) (ratification requires proof that policymaker approved subordinate’s decision and basis)
Lytle v. Carl, 382 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.) (policymaker must know of constitutional violation and actually approve it)
Isabel v. Reagan, 987 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.) (appellate court may affirm on any record-supported ground)
Sharp v. County of Orange, 871 F.3d 901 (9th Cir.) (qualified immunity protects officers absent clearly established law)
Wasco Prods., Inc. v. Southwall Techs., Inc., 435 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.) (summary judgment is not a chance to cure deficient pleadings)
United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir.) (arguments not supported by citation or developed are waived)
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (Sup. Ct.) (in obvious cases, clearly established law may be found without a body of precedent)
Taylor v. Riojas, 141 S. Ct. 52 (Sup. Ct.) (limits of what qualifies as an obviously established violation)