Kelvin Gant v. County of Los Angeles
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22216
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- This case involves mistaken identity arrests of Kelvin Gant and Jose Ventura based on warrants intended for others.
- Warrants were entered into two systems: WPS (state Warrants) and CWS (Los Angeles County warrants), with limited updating rights by issuing agency.
- Gant was arrested mistakenly in 2008 under a warrant for his brother Kevin Gant; he showed a judicial clearance form but was detained overnight.
- Ventura was arrested in 2007 on a warrant for Jose Ventura; no CII or Social Security number was on the warrant, and fingerprint data flowed through Live Scan.
- Ventura was detained for four days before a fingerprint-based discrepancy led to release; he later asserted due process and Bane Act claims.
- The district court granted dismissal and summary judgment against most claims; the Ninth Circuit reversed in part and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment—particularity and probable cause for Gant | Gant: L.A. City failed to update CWS, causing repeated mistaken arrests. | L.A. City: warrant was sufficiently particular; CII number on warrant or other identifiers were adequate. | Gant’s Fourth Amendment claim against L.A. City affirmed (no §1983 violation) per Rivera guidance. |
| Fourteenth Amendment due process—detention of Gant | Gant: county detention based on Torrance’s determination violated due process. | County argued brief detention with prompt hearing is constitutionally permitted. | Reversed as to L.A. County claim; remanded for due process analysis under Mathews v. Eldridge. |
| Fourth Amendment—Ventura against L.A. City for particulars | Ventura: L.A. City failed to include CII or Main numbers, undermining particularity. | Rivera controls; warrant satisfied particularity with name and detailed description. | Ventura's Fourth Amendment claim against L.A. City affirmed (district court upheld dismissal) per Rivera. |
| Fourteenth Amendment—Ventura against San Bernardino for detention | Ventura: four-day detention without adequate investigation violated due process. | San Bernardino: policy required fingerprint comparisons only when detainee complained; no policy violation shown. | Affirmed district court; Ventura’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against San Bernardino affirmed? (context shows district court’s grant of summary judgment affirmed). |
| Bane Act—Chino defendants | Ventura: coercive conduct led to mistaken arrest; violates Bane Act. | Chino: arrest supported by warrant; immunity defenses apply. | Reversed district court on Ventura’s Bane Act claim against Chino; remanded for trial on coercion issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera v. County of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 2014) ( Fourth Amendment particularity and probable cause in mistaken-identity arrests; warrant lacking a CII number deemed acceptable given description.)
- Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1979) (Detention under a valid warrant but with repeated protests may violate due process depending on procedures.)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (Due process liability for failures to provide timely or adequate protections against erroneous detention.)
- Fairley v. Luman, 281 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2002) (Balancing procedural protections owed when risk of erroneous detention exists.)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (Mathews balancing test for due process protections.)
- Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) (Standard for reviewing dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) and summary judgment.)
- West v. Cabell, 167 U.S. 463 (1897) (Arrest warrant must truly name or sufficiently describe the subject.)
- Okla. City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985) (Liability for improper customs must be based on longstanding, widespread practice.)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (Municipal liability for customs or policies causing constitutional rights violations.)
- Lopez v. City of Oxnard, 254 Cal. Rptr. 556 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (State immunity for officers in mistaken-arrest context; process on face may immunize.)