C. V. v. City of Anaheim, No. 14-55760 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit against defendants after the shooting death of Bernie Villegas. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could draw the following factual conclusions: (1) the officers, responding to a call about a suspected drug dealer armed with a shotgun and loitering in the visitor parking area of an apartment complex, came upon Villegas already holding a long gun; (2) Villegas was ordered to put his hands up, and as he was complying, the officers ordered him to drop his gun; (3) without providing a warning or sufficient time to comply, or observing Villegas pointing the long gun toward the officers or making any move toward the trigger, Officer Bennallack resorted to deadly force. Viewing the facts in this light, the court concluded that the deadly force was not objectively reasonable. Thus, the district court erred in holding that Bennallack’s use of deadly force was justified as a matter of law and in granting summary judgment on that basis. The court concluded, however, that it was not clearly established at the time that using deadly force in this situation, even viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, would constitute excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, Bennallack is immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for his use of deadly force. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to this claim. The court concluded that the district court erred in holding that the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable as a matter of law. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the state law claims and remanded them for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law alleging that City of Anaheim police officers used unconstitutional deadly force when they shot and killed Bernie Villegas, and remanded. The panel held that considering the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, a reasonable juror could find in favor of plaintiffs. The panel held that a reasonable jury could draw the following factual conclusions: (1) the officers, responding to a call about a suspected drug dealer armed with a shotgun and loitering in the visitor parking area of an apartment complex, came upon Villegas already holding a long gun; (2) Villegas was ordered to put his hands C.V. V. CITY OF ANAHEIM 3 up, and as he was complying, the officers ordered him to drop his gun; (3) without providing a warning or sufficient time to comply, or observing Villegas pointing the long gun toward the officers or making any move toward the trigger, Officer Bennallack resorted to deadly force. The panel held that viewing the facts in this light, deadly force was not objectively reasonable. The panel nevertheless held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established on January 7, 2012, that using deadly force in this situation, even viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, would constitute excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim. Determining that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not shield defendants from state law claims, the panel reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the state law claims and remanded for further proceedings.
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.