Maria Sandoval v. Peter Hish

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 12 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA SANDOVAL, personally and on No. 10-55733
behalf of The Estate of Victor Sandoval,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03428-PSG-SS
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PETER HISH; GORDON BAKER;
ERNEST FERREAS; GERARD
VELONA, in their personal capacities,
Defendants - Appellants,
_______________________________,
and
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES; JOE PURCELL, Sergeant;
TADASHI HIRAOKE; JEFFREY KOCH;
EDWIN ALVAREZ; MICHAEL
DOWNING; ROBERT KENNY, in their
personal and official capacities,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 10, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and HUDSON, District
Judge.**
Defendants-Appellants are individual law enforcement officers for the
County of Los Angeles who appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for
summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Plaintiff-Appellee, Maria
Sandoval, brought an action on behalf of herself and the Estate of Victor Sandoval,
the decedent, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Victor Sandoval, a mentally ill
individual, died as a result of positional asphyxia associated with restraint after
Defendants used pepper spray and physical restraints to purportedly subdue him.
The material facts were disputed, and the district court ruled that if the jury
accepted Plaintiff’s version of events, Defendants violated the decedent’s clearly
established right to be free from excessive force.
Contrary to Defendants’ suggestion, all of the facts relied upon by the
district court and in the Plaintiff’s appellate brief are supported by evidence in the
district court record. The district court, for purposes of considering immunity,
**
The Honorable Henry E. Hudson, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
2
properly assumed that Plaintiff’s version of events was correct. Jeffers v. Gomez,
267 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir. 2001). Given that assumption, Defendants’ use of
pepper spray and physical force to restrain the decedent was objectively
unreasonable, because Defendants knew that the decedent was mentally ill, that he
had committed no crime, and that he did not pose any threat to the safety of
Defendants or others. See Drummond ex rel. Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343
F.3d 1052, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2003). The use of pepper spray in such
circumstances would have violated the decedent’s constitutional right to be free
from excessive force, which was clearly established as of several years before the
incident in question. See Young v. County of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156, 1167–68
(9th Cir. 2011). The use of physical restraints, moreover, also would have violated
the decedent’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force at the time
of the incident. See Drummond, 343 F.3d at 1061–62; see also Motley v. Parks,
432 F.3d 1072, 1088 (9th Cir. 2005). Defendants, therefore, were not entitled to
qualified immunity.
AFFIRMED.
3