Tiffany Tabares v. City of Huntington Beach
988 F.3d 1119
9th Cir.2021Background
- Officer Eric Esparza observed Dillan Tabares behaving oddly (talking to himself, hand gestures, glazed/fidgety) but had no reason to suspect a crime or a weapon before contacting him.
- Esparza attempted to stop/detain Tabares; a taser had no effect, a physical altercation followed in which Tabares punched Esparza and grabbed at his belt, removing Esparza’s flashlight.
- After separating about 15 feet, Esparza drew his firearm; video shows Tabares holding an object that Esparza later should have known was the flashlight. Esparza fired six shots, shouted “get down,” then fired a seventh; Tabares died.
- Tiffany Tabares sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment excessive force) and state-law claims including negligence. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims; on appeal Tiffany pursued only the negligence claim.
- The Ninth Circuit held the district court misapplied California negligence law (which is broader than the Fourth Amendment), found genuine disputes of material fact (apparent mental illness, failure to follow POST de‑escalation, failure to warn, and reasonableness of multiple shots), and reversed and remanded the negligence summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence shows Tabares exhibited apparent mental illness observable to Esparza | Tabares: witness and expert testimony plus video show indicators (talking to self, disorganized behavior) that a reasonable officer should have recognized | Defendants: no evidence Esparza knew or should have known of mental illness | Held: Genuine dispute exists; a jury could find Esparza should have suspected mental illness |
| Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard (California negligence v. Fourth Amendment) | Tabares: California negligence is broader and allows pre‑shooting conduct to render later force negligent (citing Hayes) | Defendants: federal Fourth Amendment analysis controls; justifiable homicide shields liability | Held: District court conflated standards; California negligence governs and can be broader than Fourth Amendment |
| Whether Esparza’s pre‑shooting tactics (failure to de‑escalate/ask for backup/avoid contact) can make later use of deadly force negligent | Tabares: failure to follow POST and de‑escalation training is evidence of negligence and makes subsequent force unreasonable under totality | Defendants: prior struggle and combat justified believing less‑lethal measures wouldn’t work | Held: Pre‑shooting decisions may render later force unreasonable; evidence supports a jury could so find |
| Whether firing six (then a seventh) shots without warning was reasonable | Tabares: video, expert, and eyewitness testimony support that Tabares was stationary 15 ft away and not an immediate lethal threat; lack of warning and continuing to shoot make the force unreasonable | Defendants: prior combat and ignored warnings justified inference that deadly force was necessary | Held: A jury could find the number of shots and the absence/delay of warning unreasonable; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Cnty. of San Diego, 305 P.3d 252 (Cal. 2013) (California negligence standard in deadly‑force cases is broader than the Fourth Amendment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use‑of‑force claims are judged by objective reasonableness)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (when uncontradicted video is dispositive, courts may rely on it to resolve factual disputes)
- Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2002) (hand‑to‑hand combat context where shooting was upheld; limited to facts of locked combat)
- Mendez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 897 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2018) (pre‑shooting tactical decisions can make later deadly force unreasonable under California law)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (officers face diminished governmental interest when confronting emotionally disturbed persons)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) (courts must not improperly weigh evidence on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; credibility and drawing inferences are jury functions)