The Estate of Alex Martin v. United States
686 F. App'x 419
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs sued federal agents on behalf of Alex Martin, who died after a police chase and the agents’ use of a taser in dart mode.
- Plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations (Fourth Amendment excessive force and provocation doctrine) and state-law torts under the FTCA (assault and battery; negligence; wrongful death).
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed.
- Central factual points: agents pulled Martin over, approached his vehicle before a pursuit, engaged in a high-speed chase, and deployed a taser when an agent perceived Martin reaching toward the center console.
- Plaintiffs argued antecedent misconduct in the stop/approach provoked the fatal sequence and that the taser use was excessive; defendants maintained the stop and force were reasonable and that death was not a foreseeable result of any antecedent acts.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provocation doctrine — antecedent stop/approach | Stop and approach violated Martin’s rights and proximately caused his death under the provocation doctrine | Any antecedent violations did not proximately cause death; death was not a foreseeable consequence | Affirmed for defendants; no proximate causation because death was not reasonably foreseeable |
| Excessive force — taser in dart mode | Taser deployment constituted excessive force and violated Fourth Amendment (Bivens claim) | Dart-mode taser is intermediate force; justified after high-speed chase and perceived threat (reach to console) | Affirmed for defendants; force was reasonable under Graham balancing |
| FTCA assault & battery (California law) | Assault/battery claim based on the same force used | Under California law, no excessive force, so no state-law assault/battery liability | Affirmed for defendants; no liability because force was reasonable under Graham analysis |
| FTCA negligence (preshooting conduct) and wrongful death | Agents’ preshooting conduct (appearance like robbers, contradictory commands) was negligent and proximately caused death | Any alleged negligence did not make death a reasonably foreseeable consequence | Affirmed for defendants; negligence claims fail for lack of proximate causation; wrongful death thus fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendez v. Cty. of L.A., 815 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir.) (provocation doctrine framework)
- Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir.) (liability under provocation doctrine limited to harms proximately caused)
- Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (proximate cause framed in terms of foreseeability/scope of risk)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment excessive-force balancing test)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Bivens remedy for constitutional violations)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir.) (taser in dart mode is intermediate level of force)
- Millbrook v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1441 (2013) (FTCA and state-law tort claims against the United States)
- Avina v. United States, 681 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (applying Graham analysis to FTCA assault and battery claims)
- Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ensley, 174 F.3d 977 (9th Cir.) (elements of negligence claim include duty, breach, proximate cause)