In Reese v. County of Sacramento, published April 23, 2018, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's post-verdict order granting judgment as a matter of law on a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim under the Fourth Amendment, but reversed its sua sponte grant of summary judgment on a Civil Code section 52.1 Bane Act claim. Sheriff's deputies had received reports that a man in the plaintiff's apartment was armed. One deputy knocked on the door while another covered the door with a rifle. The plaintiff opened the door with a large knife in his hand, raised, about a foot from the knocking deputy. The deputy with the rifle fired at the plaintiff. The other deputy entered the apartment, expecting to see the plaintiff shot and incapacitated. He saw the plaintiff standing upright, and fired his handgun at the plaintiff. The plaintiff survived. He sued the officers under section 1983 and the Bane Act for use of excessive force. The jury made a finding that the officer with the handgun shot the plaintiff, rather than the officer with the rifle; and that at the time he was shot, the plaintiff did not pose an immediate threat. The district court granted a JMOL on the section 1983 claim based on qualified immunity, and sua sponte granted summary judgment on the Bane Act claim, concluding that the claim required an act of intimidation or force apart from the constitutional violation itself.
The 9th Circuit affirmed the judgment on the section 1983 claim. The first prong of qualified immunity, whether there was a constitutional violation, was resolved against defendants by the jury. But the second prong--whether the law clearly established that the deputies' acts under the circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment--was an issue for the court, not the jury. Since there were no court decisions at the time sufficiently similar to place beyond debate that the second deputy's use of force violated the Fourth Amendment, the district court properly granted qualified immunity.
The 9th Circuit reversed the summary judgment on the Bane Act, based on subsequent California appellate court law. That law established that outside of negligence cases, no act of threat or intimidation besides the constitutional violation is necessary for a Bane Act violation. But a Bane Act violation does require a showing of specific intent by the defendant to violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights. The court remanded the Bane Act claim for a determination of whether the deputy had the specific intent necessary for a violation.
Comments