Robert Reese, Jr. v. County of Sacramento
888 F.3d 1030
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- On March 25, 2011 deputies responded to a 911 report that an intoxicated man with a knife and possibly a gun was inside apartment 144; Deputies Brown (rifle) and Rose (handgun) approached the door.
- Deputy Rose knocked; the door opened and Reese stood in the doorway with a knife in an elevated position. Brown fired a rifle shot that missed; Rose then fired a handgun shot from about 3–5 feet, striking Reese.
- Reese sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment excessive force) and California’s Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1). After a seven‑day jury trial, the jury found for Reese on the Fourth Amendment and Bane Act claims against Rose and the County and awarded $534,340.00.
- Defendants moved post‑verdict for judgment as a matter of law, arguing qualified immunity for Rose, insufficiency of proof (including which shot caused the injury), Heck v. Humphrey bar from Reese’s misdemeanor no‑contest plea, and trial instruction errors; they also sought a new trial.
- The district court granted Rose qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim and, sua sponte, granted summary judgment for Defendants on the Bane Act (finding the court’s proposed instruction should have been given). The court denied the Heck bar and other post‑trial relief. Both sides appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deputy Rose is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged excessive force | Reese: jury found Fourth Amendment violation (no immediate threat); thus immunity should be denied | Rose: no clearly established law put him on notice that shooting under these split‑second facts was unlawful | Court: Qualified immunity granted — no controlling precedent clearly established the unlawfulness of Rose’s conduct in March 2011. |
| Proper standard/instruction for Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1) and whether Bane Act claim survives without independent coercion | Reese: Chaudhry and prior rulings permit Bane Act liability based on excessive force alone; jury instruction that a Fourth Amendment win yields a Bane Act win was proper | Defs: Bane Act requires threats, intimidation, or coercion beyond the coercion inherent in the constitutional violation; CACI 3066 should have been given | Court: District court erred in instructing passthrough and in granting summary judgment; controlling CA appellate authority (Cornell) requires that (1) coercion need not be independent from the constitutional violation, and (2) Bane Act requires specific intent to violate the right; remand for new trial on Bane Act. |
| Whether Reese’s misdemeanor no‑contest plea (exhibiting a knife) bars his civil claims under Heck v. Humphrey | Reese: Defendants failed to prove factual basis of the plea; it may rest on conduct (not involving officers) that does not contradict his civil claims | Defs: A conviction for exhibiting a knife implies conduct inconsistent with Reese’s civil claims and therefore Heck bars recovery | Court: Heck does not bar the claims — record lacks proof of the factual basis of the plea tying it to the officers’ version of events. |
| Other trial‑level errors (damages sufficiency, evidentiary rulings, disputed jury instruction that liability could be shown by "shot at and/or shot") | Reese: damages supported by evidence of permanent scarring and suffering; expert testimony and other evidence properly admitted | Defs: insufficient evidence for future non‑economic damages; certain expert/deposition evidence should have been excluded; instruction was prejudicial | Court: Award for future non‑economic loss upheld as supported by substantial evidence; evidentiary rulings and instruction error (if any) were harmless or not prejudicial; exclusion of a witness deposition was not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework and judge’s role under Pearson)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (purpose and limits of qualified immunity)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (Supreme Court reversal illustrating close cases where law was not clearly established)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (bar on § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. rule that excessive force can form predicate for a Bane Act claim)
- Cornell v. City & County of San Francisco, 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 356 (Cal. Ct. App. decision: Bane Act does not require independent coercion and requires specific intent to violate the right)
- Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (specific‑intent standard applied to civil Bane Act intent analysis)