Rodriguez v. City of Fresno, 819 F. Supp. 2d 937

Plaintiff Gabrielle Rodriguez was injured as an incidental bystander during a Fresno police response to a New Year’s Eve disturbance, in which Chavez shot Hernandez and also wounded Plaintiff.
Defendants include City of Fresno, Jerry Dyer, and Chavez; asserted claims include §1983 Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Monell, negligence, battery, Unruh Act (Civil Code §51.7), Bane Act (Civil Code §52.1), negligent hiring/supervision, and vicarious liability.
The officers pursued Hernandez into a residence after describing him as armed and dangerous; dispute exists over whether Hernandez was armed, whether officers identified themselves, and whether Plaintiff was in Chavez’s sight picture.
The court held a summary judgment briefing; prior rulings compelled disclosure related to internal affairs, and the court noted sharply disputed facts but proceeded to evaluate the legal standards for the asserted claims.
The court granted some claims and denied others, concluding there was no Fourth Amendment seizure of Plaintiff, granted Monell immunity to City, granted Unruh Act and Bane Act defenses, denied negligence and battery on the merits, and dismissed state-law claims without prejudice while declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fourth Amendment seizure by Chavez	Rodriguez was seized by Chavez’s gunfire as an innocent bystander.	No seizure occurred because Chavez targeted Hernandez, not Rodriguez.	No Fourth Amendment violation; Rodriguez was not seized.
Fourteenth Amendment due process - conscience shock	Chavez acted with malice or deliberate indifference toward Rodriguez.	Chavez’s actions were part of a legitimate pursuit to apprehend a suspect and not conscience-shocking.	No due process violation; no malice or intentional harm outside legitimate law enforcement objectives.
Monell municipal liability	City policy or widespread practice caused the constitutional harm.	No constitutional injury to Rodriguez; City cannot be liable under Monell for absence of injury.	City not liable under Monell; summary judgment granted for City on §1983 claim.
Unruh Act and Bane Act viability	Bystander injury constitutes race/gender-based violence and coercion violating state statutes.	No cognizable constitutional injury or predicate state action shown; statutes do not apply here.	Summary judgment granted on both §51.7 (Unruh Act) and §52.1 (Bane Act) claims.
State-law negligence and battery claims	Evidence supports negligent and battery liability for Chavez and municipality.	No constitutional injury already established; evaluate negligence/battery under state law.	Negligence and battery claims survive summary judgment; the court denies dismissal on these grounds.

Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1989) (seizure involves intentional termination of movement by government force)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness standard for uses of force during investigations)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1998) (due process shocks to conscience when deliberate indifference in evolving situations)
Vathekan v. Prince George’s County, 154 F.3d 173 (4th Cir. 1998) (police dog deployment can constitute a seizure of bystanders)
Claybrook v. Birchwell, 199 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 2000) (Fourth Amendment not applicable to incidental bystander injury in shootouts)
Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (malicious intent standard in conscience-shocking tests)
Nelson v. City of Davis, 709 F.Supp.2d 978 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (pepperspray bystanders case—seizure if area targeted)
Jones v. Kmart Corp., 17 Cal.4th 329 (Cal. 1998) (Bane Act predicated on state action; need constitutional violation)
City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (U.S. 1986) (Monell framework requires actual constitutional injury for municipal liability)