Kim Spangler v. County of Ventura

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 24 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIM SPANGLER, Individually, and as the No. 18-55954
Personal Representative for Dennis
Howard Brewer, Deceased, D.C. No.
2:16-cv-09174-ODW-GJS
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF VENTURA; WILLIAM
SCHNEEKLOTH, Ventura County
Deputy Sheriff, Serial No. 4218,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 21, 2020
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plaintiff-Appellant Kim Spangler (Spangler) appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees (Appellees), and the
award of attorneys’ fees to Appellees.
This appeal arises from a police chase involving Ventura County Deputy
Sheriff Schneekloth and Spangler’s son, Dennis Howard Brewer (Brewer). After
observing Brewer commit multiple traffic violations while riding a motorcycle,
including driving at excessive speed and cross a double-yellow line, Deputy
Schneekloth activated his emergency lights in an attempt to conduct a traffic stop
of Brewer. But Brewer did not stop, and attempted to evade Deputy Schneekloth
at a high speed. Deputy Schneekloth continued to pursue Brewer as he drove off
the roadway and up a hill. Tragically, Brewer fell off a cliff on the other side of
the hill, resulting in his death.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo the district
court’s summary judgment order. See Universal Cable Prods., LLC v. Atlantic
Specialty Ins. Co., 929 F.3d 1143, 1151 (9th Cir. 2019). The award of attorneys’
fees is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Johnson v. MGM Holdings, Inc., 943
F.3d 1239, 1241 (9th Cir. 2019). Factual findings made by the district court to
support its fee award are reviewed for clear error. See Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. City
of Hailey, 452 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th Cir. 2006).
2
1. The district court correctly applied the purpose-to-harm standard in
evaluating Spangler’s Fourteenth Amendment claims. When considering which
standard to apply, the district court must consider the circumstances the law
enforcement officer faced. See Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159
F.3d 365, 373 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended. The “critical question . . . is whether
the circumstances allowed the state actors time to fully consider the potential
consequences of their conduct.” Id. (citations omitted). Considering the pursuit of
decedent, decedent’s failure to respond to the emergency lights, decedent’s evasive
driving tactics, and Deputy Schneekloth’s legitimate law enforcement objectives in
pursuing a motorist committing traffic violations, we agree with the district court
that Spangler failed to raise a material issue of fact that Deputy Schneekloth acted
with a purpose to harm the decedent. See Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131, 1137-
39 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court also correctly determined that there was no
evidence that Deputy Schneekloth collided with Brewer’s motorcycle, as
Spangler’s expert acknowledged.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’
fees to Appellees. The district court may award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing
defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, “upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was
frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 833
3
(2011) (citations omitted). The district court did not clearly err when it concluded
that Spangler’s claims became frivolous once she continued to litigate her claims
despite producing no evidence to support her theory of liability. Spangler’s
forensic expert declined to refute Appellees’ evidence that there was no contact
between the decedent’s motorcycle and Deputy Schneekloth’s vehicle. Eyewitness
testimony and accident reconstruction testimony corroborated the fact that no
collision occurred. The district court adequately explained the basis for the fee
amount and the amount was reasonable. No abuse of discretion occurred. See
Tutor-Saliba Corp., 452 F.3d at 1064-65.
AFFIRMED.
4