Rafael Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 715 F.3d 766

Officers Wyatt and Ellis stopped a van driven by Gonzalez after a traffic incident and ensuing reconnaissance for a transient.
They observed possible drug-related concealment and attempted to gain compliance from Gonzalez as he refused to open his hands and to show what he held.
Wyatt struck Gonzalez with a flashlight and Ellis attempted a carotid restraint while Gonzalez manipulated the gear and failed to comply.
Gonzalez accelerated the van with Wyatt in the passenger seat; Ellis struck him and Wyatt then fired, killing Gonzalez as the van moved away.
Gonzalez’s representatives sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and state-law claims; the district court granted summary judgment for the officers and City.
The appellate court affirmed; the dissent would reverse, focusing on inconsistencies in officer testimony about speed, time, and distance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the force used was objectively reasonable under Graham v. Connor	Gonzalez’s representatives argue excessive force in five acts.	Officers contend the force was reasonable given the threat and resistance.	Yes, the force was reasonable under the Graham factors.
Whether specific acts (flashlight to arm, carotid restraint attempt, punches, flashlight to head, deadly shot) were excessive	These acts exceeded the reasonable force necessary.	Acts were within reasonable force given resistance and threat.	No, all acts were reasonable in context.
Whether the shooting can be justified given the immediacy of threat	Speed and movement of van created ongoing danger to officers.	Vehicle threat and suspect resistance justified deadly force.	Yes, deadly force justified by imminent threat.
Whether due process familial-association claim survives	Claim requires conscience-shocking conduct or purposeful harm not present here.	No conscious-shocking intent; rapid split-second decisions justified.	No due-process violation established.
Whether prior conduct by officers independently violated constitutional rights	Prior conduct could render shooting unreasonable.	No prior constitutional violation, so shooting not unreasonable.	Shooting not unreasonable based on lack of independent prior violation.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (establishes objective-reasonableness framework for police force)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (questions the reasonableness in high-speed car-flight scenarios)
Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (three Graham factors and totality of circumstances)
Coles v. Eagle, 704 F.3d 624 (9th Cir. 2012) (policy on when factors weigh in favor of officers)
Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (deadly force in close-quarters vehicle pursuit)
Padula v. Leimbach, 656 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2011) (reasonableness of stern but non-excessive force)
Gregory v. County of Maui, 523 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2008) (noncompliance and resisting behavior analyzed under Graham)
Forrester v. City of San Diego, 25 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 1994) (pain-compliance techniques and reasonable force)
Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 1994) (summary-judgment scrutiny in deadly-force cases)
Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (due-process shock-the-conscience standard)
Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2002) (prior conduct must be independent constitutional violation)