McGuigan v. County of San Bernardino
698 F. App'x 919
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 23, 2013, Officer Nichols went to 8411 Hawthorne St. to execute a felony arrest warrant for Erik Ford, whose warrant listed a different ZIP and described a white male ~5'8", 180 lbs., blonde hair, green eyes, born 1970.
- Plaintiff McGuigan (white, 6'0", 215 lbs., dark hair, blue eyes, born 1967) intercepted Nichols on his porch, denied knowing Ford, and refused to identify himself.
- Nichols arrested McGuigan for obstructing an investigation (Cal. Penal Code § 148), shoved him against a wall, handcuffed him, and refused to loosen the cuffs despite McGuigan’s request; McGuigan alleged no pain.
- McGuigan sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure, excessive force, and malicious prosecution; district court denied defendants’ qualified immunity on summary judgment.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews de novo whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, accepting McGuigan’s version of facts and drawing inferences in his favor.
- The Ninth Circuit reverses: holds defendants entitled to qualified immunity as to the detention and force, and finds malicious prosecution claim moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of seizure/arrest | Nichols lacked probable cause to detain/arrest McGuigan because McGuigan was not Ford and refused ID | Reasonable officers could suspect McGuigan was Ford or harboring Ford given physical similarities and address proximity | Qualified immunity granted; seizure/arrest reasonable as a matter of law for qualified-immunity purposes |
| Excessive force (shove, wall restraint, refusal to loosen cuffs) | Force was excessive and unconstitutional | Force was not clearly excessive; officers’ actions reasonable under the circumstances | Qualified immunity granted; not clearly established that conduct was unconstitutional |
| Malicious prosecution | Prosecution followed from unlawful arrest, so claim viable | If arrest/detention are immune, malicious prosecution claim fails | Malicious prosecution claim moot because qualified immunity bars detention/arrest claims |
| Review of district court’s qualified-immunity grant on pendent state claims | McGuigan sought further review of other rulings | Defendants argued no basis for pendent review | Ninth Circuit declines pendent jurisdiction; no special circumstances to review further |
Key Cases Cited
- George v. Morris, 736 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2013) (scope of interlocutory review of denial of qualified immunity)
- Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace, 678 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2012) (qualified immunity review framework accepting plaintiff’s facts)
- Glenn v. Wash. Cty., 673 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of qualified immunity entitlement)
- Shafer v. Cty. of Santa Barbara, 868 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2017) (two-step qualified immunity test and clearly established-rights discussion)
- Sanchez v. Canales, 574 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) (circumstances for exercising pendent jurisdiction)
- Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussion of pendent jurisdiction and special circumstances)
- United States v. King, 687 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2012) (overruling on other grounds noted; cited for context on jurisdictional principles)