Joshua Nakagawa v. County of Maui, 686 F. App'x 388

Plaintiffs Joshua Nakagawa and Anthony Lum-John appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for police officers after a shooting incident involving a truck driver.
In the district court, appellants admitted as "undisputed" that Officers Losvar and Hattori shot at the driver and Sergeant Kapahulehua fired at the driver’s head.
The admissions specified officers intentionally directed force at the driver, not at the appellants or the vehicle generally.
Plaintiffs asserted Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure) and Fourteenth Amendment (substantive due process) claims against the officers.
The district court found no Fourth Amendment seizure, that officers’ conduct did not “shock the conscience,” and that officers were entitled to qualified immunity; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
The court also noted appellants’ briefs failed to cite the record per FRAP 28(a)(8)(A) and Ninth Circuit rules, providing an alternative basis to dismiss the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Fourth Amendment seizure occurred	Plaintiffs argued officers’ shooting restrained their freedom of movement (seizure)	Officers intentionally shot only at the driver, not at plaintiffs or the vehicle, so no seizure	No seizure: force was directed at driver, not plaintiffs, so Fourth Amendment claim fails
Whether officers’ conduct violated substantive due process ("shocks the conscience")	Plaintiffs argued force was excessive and aimed to punish or "bully/get even"	Officers fired to protect a fellow officer from grave danger, a legitimate law-enforcement objective	No shock-the-conscience: undisputed evidence shows officers acted to protect colleagues, not to harm for improper motives
Qualified immunity for officers	Plaintiffs contended rights were violated and clearly established	Defendants argued no constitutional violation and thus qualified immunity applies	Qualified immunity applies because no clearly established constitutional right was violated
Procedural compliance with appellate rules	Plaintiffs failed to include record citations for key factual assertions	Defendants pointed to FRAP and Ninth Circuit rules; failure prejudiced the court and opposing party	Appellants’ failure to cite the record violated rules and provided an alternative basis to dismiss the appeal

Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2012) (defining when police conduct constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure)
Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (substantive due process requires conduct that "shocks the conscience," with different standards for snap judgments)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework)
Han v. Stanford Univ., 210 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2000) (appeal dismissal for failure to correct briefing deficiencies about record citations)
Mitchel v. Gen. Elec. Co., 689 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1982) (failure to refer to the record imposes hardship on the court and opposing litigants)