Jason Shelton v. County of San Bernardino
20-55036
9th Cir.Jun 29, 2021Background
- Jason Shelton sued San Bernardino County and officers claiming trespass, assault, and excessive force under California's Bane Act after a roadside encounter in which Detective Hamilton allegedly aimed a gun at Shelton, who was unarmed.
- Video of the encounter largely undermines Shelton’s version, but Shelton testified that Hamilton briefly aimed his gun during a moment when Hamilton was off-camera. The County conceded there is a brief out-of-frame moment.
- The district court had issued a scheduling order with a deadline; Shelton learned the identities of unknown deputies on July 16, 2019 but did not move to amend until October 1, after defendants filed dispositive motions.
- The district court denied Shelton leave to amend under the Rule 16 good-cause/diligence standard, and granted summary judgment for the County on all claims.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial to amend and the trespass summary judgment, but reversed/vacated the Bane Act and assault dismissals (finding triable dispute over whether Hamilton aimed a gun) and vacated the costs award, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 | Shelton argued he only learned deputies' identities July 16, 2019 and should be allowed to add them | County argued Shelton missed scheduling-order deadline and was not diligent | Denied — district court did not abuse discretion; Shelton lacked diligence under Johnson v. Mammoth |
| Trespass (summary judgment) | Shelton argued County’s officers unlawfully entered his property | County argued there was no admissible evidence of trespass | Affirmed — Shelton failed to present specific admissible evidence opposing the County per Devereaux standard |
| Bane Act (excessive force) | Shelton argued Hamilton aimed a gun at him while he was unarmed, supporting a Bane Act claim | County argued force was objectively reasonable and video shows no gun-aiming | Reversed — disputed fact (Shelton’s testimony and an off-camera moment) makes objective reasonableness inappropriate as a matter of law |
| Assault (state tort) | Shelton argued pointing a gun constituted assault | County argued force was reasonable so no assault | Vacated — because factual dispute on gun-aiming precludes summary judgment; remanded |
| Costs award | Shelton opposed costs when County no longer prevailing | County sought costs after district-court victory | Vacated — parties to bear own costs on appeal per Rule 54(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (Rule 16 good-cause/diligence standard for post‑scheduling-order amendments)
- Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (summary judgment: nonmoving party must produce specific admissible evidence showing a genuine dispute)
- Robinson v. Solano Cnty., 278 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (Bane Act excessive-force elements align with § 1983 excessive force standards)
- Reese v. Cnty. of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2018) (same excessive-force standards apply to Bane Act claims)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (when video evidence is unambiguous, it can preclude contrary testimony on summary judgment)
- Edson v. City of Anaheim, 63 Cal. App. 4th 1269 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (assault/tort analysis where force is evaluated for reasonableness)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness test for use of force)