5:23-cv-00257
C.D. Cal.May 5, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (the Botten family) were injured inside their home during a police-involved shooting following a vehicular pursuit of a criminal suspect, which ended outside their residence in Hesperia, California on February 17, 2021.
- The involved officers were members of the California Highway Patrol (Kee, Rubalcava, Blackwood) and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (Adams, Vaccari). The State Defendants in this decision were Kee, Rubalcava, and Blackwood.
- Plaintiffs assert they received no warnings from police, and were shot by officers Kee and Rubalcava, who fired at the suspect and in the direction of plaintiffs' home.
- Plaintiffs filed claims under Section 1983 for excessive force (Fourth Amendment), substantive due process (Fourteenth Amendment), battery, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Bane Act.
- The court ruled on State Defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal as a matter of law on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (4th Am.; § 1983) | Officers intentionally shot into their home without sufficient threat. | Shots were aimed at an armed, threatening suspect; plaintiffs were not intended targets. | DENIED – Triable fact issues; jury could find excessive force used against plaintiffs. |
| Qualified immunity | Actions violated clearly established rights; officers acted unreasonably. | Use of force was reasonable under the circumstances; actions did not violate clearly established law. | DENIED – Triable fact issues preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity. |
| Substantive due process (14th Am.) | Officers' conduct "shocks the conscience" by shooting into plaintiffs’ home. | Officers made split-second decisions in a dynamic, escalating situation. | GRANTED – No evidence of purpose to harm unrelated to law enforcement objectives. |
| Battery (CA law) | Officers committed battery by unreasonably shooting plaintiffs. | Use of force was reasonable as aimed at suspect; no intent to harm plaintiffs. | DENIED – Triable issues on reasonableness of force. |
| Negligence / Negligent IED (Kee/Rubalcava) | Officers breached duty of reasonable care in use of deadly force. | Use of force was reasonable aimed at suspect, not bystanders. | DENIED – Triable issues on breach and causation. |
| Negligence / Negligent IED (Blackwood) | (No specific argument as no evidence he shot toward the home.) | Blackwood did not fire at the Botten residence; no duty breached. | GRANTED – No evidence of breach by Blackwood. |
| Bane Act | Officers used excessive force with intent/reckless disregard for plaintiffs’ rights. | No unlawful intent or reckless disregard. | DENIED – Triable issues on intent and violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (defining material facts for summary judgment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness standard governs excessive force claims)
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989) (Fourth Amendment seizure requires intentional termination of movement)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force only reasonable if suspect poses a significant threat)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-prong analysis)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity must be assessed in context of case)
- Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (threat posed is the foremost excessive force factor)
- Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 1994) (reasonableness of deadly force)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established law for qualified immunity)