Velazquez v. City of Long Beach, No. 12-56933 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against the City and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and California law, alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force claims. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury could have concluded that no probable cause existed, based both on evidence that plaintiff did not in fact resist Officer Abuhadwan and evidence that plaintiff did not impede Abuhadwan in the exercise of his lawful duties. Therefore, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment as a matter of law on the unlawful arrest claim. The court also concluded that the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's unlawful arrest claim so substantially prejudiced the jury’s consideration of the excessive force claim as to warrant reversal of the verdict. The court held that the district court's incorrect evidentiary ruling, categorically excluding evidence to establish plaintiff's theory on municipal liability, resulted in the judge erroneously entering judgment as a mater of law for defendants. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law on the Monell claims. The court further held that the district court abused its discretion in blanketly refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and so reversed its dismissal of plaintiff’s state law claims.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment, entered following a jury verdict, and remanded for a new trial in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which plaintiff alleged that he was unlawfully arrested for resisting a police officer, in violation of California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1), and that excessive force was used during his arrest. Reversing the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s unlawful arrest claim, the panel held that there was sufficient evidence at trial on which a reasonable jury could have concluded that no probable cause for the arrest existed, based both on evidence that plaintiff did not in fact resist the police officer and evidence that plaintiff did not impede the police officer in the exercise of his lawful duties. Reversing the jury’s verdict on the excessive force claim, the panel held that the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law on the lawfulness of the arrest, in conjunction with the district court’s instructions on the excessive force claim, improperly influenced the jury’s consideration of the excessive force claim. The panel held that the district court’s categorical exclusion of evidence relevant to establishing plaintiff’s theory of municipal liability was an abuse of discretion and VELAZQUEZ V. CITY OF LONG BEACH 3 that this incorrect evidentiary ruling resulted in the district court erroneously entering judgment as a matter of law for the defendants. The panel therefore reversed the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law on the claims against the City of Long Beach and Long Beach Police Department, brought under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Finally, the panel held that the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff’s state law claims. On remand, the panel instructed the Chief Judge for the Central District of California to reassign this case to a different district judge.
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.