Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, No. 11-56360 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, father of Adolf Anthony Sanchez Gonzalez, sued officers and the City of Anaheim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation of his Fourth Amendment right of familial association and Gonzalez's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable and excessive force. Gonzalez's daughter and successor-in-interest then brought a separate suit raising similar federal claims and various state law claims. The district court consolidated both actions and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that striking Gonzalez in the arm with a flashlight was not excessive force given his stubborn refusal to follow the officers' commands; because all three Graham v. Connor factors supported the officers, they were justified in applying significant force; because the officers' prior conduct never amounted to a constitutional violation, the shooting was not unreasonable as a result; and plaintiffs presented no evidence to suggest that the officers, at any point, had a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest or self-protection and, therefore, plaintiffs' claim that the officers' conduct violated their due process right to familial association failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which plaintiffs alleged that police officers used excessive force in a struggle that led to the death of a person suspected of possessing illegal drugs. The panel noted that not only was the decedent acting strangely during a traffic stop, but that the officers had reason to believe he was committing and then attempting to conceal a drug offense. He continually ignored the officers’ commands and resisted their attempts to physically restrain him. And when he attempted to drive away with an officer in the passenger seat, he made a volatile situation all the more dangerous. The panel held that the use of force was not excessive or disproportionate to the quickly escalating situation and that it was objectively reasonable to resort to deadly force given the speed at which the events occurred. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the officers’ conduct violated their due process right to familial association, holding that nothing in the officers’ behavior suggested that there were ulterior motives at work. Dissenting, Judge Clifton stated that there was a glaring inconsistency regarding what happened during the few seconds before decedent was shot in the head, specifically about whether the vehicle was rapidly accelerating. Judge Clifton stated that a jury might conclude from the contradictory evidence that the police officer’s testimony was not believable.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 28, 2013.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 31, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.