Krechman v. County of Riverside, No. 12-55347 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that police officers used excessive force which resulted in her son's death. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law to defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). The court held that the district court did not correctly conclude as a matter of law that the pre- and post-handcuffing conduct of defendants did not violate the son's constitutional rights and that no negligence occurred. The standard used by the district court was not correct where the district court judge's analysis was infected by impermissible credibility assessments. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. The court declined to reassign the case where, despite the district court judge's error of law, the court had no reason to believe that the judge would be unable fairly and correctly to apply the Rule 50(a) standard on remand.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendants following a jury trial in this action alleging that police officers used excessive deadly force when they attempted to take custody of plaintiff’s adult son. The panel held that the district judge improperly weighed the evidence in determining that defendants’ conduct was not a substantial factor in the death. The panel stated that the record suggested that the judge’s personal experience and not the testimony viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff led the court to conclude that defendants did not use excessive force. Because the standard used by the district court was not correct, the panel reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. The panel declined to reassign the case after determining that, in spite of Judge Wright’s error of law, the panel had no reason to believe that he would be unable fairly and correctly to apply the Rule 50(a) standard on remand. Concurring, Judge N.R. Smith stated that although he agreed that it was unnecessary to reach plaintiff’s claim that the district court’s conduct rose to a level that independently warranted a new trial, it certainly approached that line.
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.