Lam v. City of Los Banos, No. 18-17404 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
After Sonny Lam was shot and killed inside his home by a police officer, Sonny's father filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law alleging that the officer used excessive deadly force. In this case, a jury specifically found that Sonny had stabbed the officer in the forearm with a pair of scissors prior to the first shot, that the officer had retreated after firing the first shot, and that Sonny did not approach the officer with scissors before the officer fired the fatal second shot.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and held that the district court properly denied the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity as to plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim where the law was clearly established at the time of the shooting that an officer could not constitutionally kill a person who did not pose an immediate threat. Furthermore, the law was also clearly established at the time of the incident that firing a second shot at a person who had previously been aggressive, but posed no threat to the officer at the time of the second shot, would violate the victim's rights. Therefore, the facts as found by the jury adequately supported the conclusion that a Fourth Amendment violation had occurred.
The panel reversed the district court's denial of the officer’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the Fourteenth Amendment claim of loss of a familial relationship with Sonny, because there was insufficient evidence in the record to show that defendant acted with a purpose to harm unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement objective. The panel remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not commit plain error in its evidentiary rulings.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s (1) judgment for plaintiff following a jury verdict; and (2) denial of defendant’s motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law alleging that defendant, a police officer, used excessive deadly force when he shot plaintiff’s son. A jury specifically found that plaintiff’s son, Sonny Lam, had stabbed Officer Acosta in the forearm with a pair of scissors prior to Acosta firing his first shot, that Acosta had retreated, and that Sonny did not approach Acosta with scissors before Acosta fired a fatal second shot. The panel held that this case was largely controlled by deferential standards of review. The panel held that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as it was required to do at this juncture, the evidence sufficiently supported the jury’s special findings that Sonny did not LAM V. ACOSTA 3 approach Officer Acosta with scissors prior to Acosta firing the second shot. The panel therefore concluded that the district court did not err in denying Acosta’s Rule 50(b) sufficiency of the evidence motion. The panel held that the district court properly denied the Rule 50(b) motion on qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim. The panel held that the law was clearly established at the time of the shooting that an officer could not constitutionally kill a person who did not pose an immediate threat. The law was also clearly established at the time of the incident that firing a second shot at a person who had previously been aggressive, but posed no threat to the officer at the time of the second shot, would violate the victim’s rights. In sum, the trial evidence, construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, did not compel the conclusion that Acosta was entitled to qualified immunity. The panel held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff on his Fourteenth Amendment claim for loss of a familial relationship. The panel held that there was insufficient evidence showing that Acosta acted with a purpose to harm unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement objective. Because the record was devoid of this evidence and the jury found only that Acosta acted “with a purpose to harm,” and not a purpose to harm unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement objective, plaintiff failed to show that Acosta committed a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Therefore, the panel reversed the jury’s verdict for plaintiff on the Fourteenth Amendment claim and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. 4 LAM V. ACOSTA The panel held that district court did not commit plain error in its admission of evidence that Acosta had experienced post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). The panel further noted that Acosta did not appeal the merits of the jury’s decisions on the state law negligence claims. Dissenting, Judge Bennett stated that Officer Acosta was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim because plaintiff identified no clearly established law that would have put Officer Acosta on notice that his actions violated the Fourth Amendment. Judge Bennett further stated that given the complete lack of evidence showing that Officer Acosta suffered from PTSD at the time of the 2013 incident in question, the district court plainly erred in allowing plaintiff to admit evidence of Officer Acosta’s 2011 PTSD diagnosis.
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.