Case ID: f-appx_559/html/0615-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ESTATE OF James Paul GARCIA III, by and through Special Administrator Rosa VALDEZ-GARZA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO; Rick Braziel; Gary Dahl, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 12-16434.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 11, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 28, 2014.
    Stewart Katz, Law Offices of Stewart Katz, Sacramento, CA, Eric Grant, Hicks Thomas LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Sheri M. Chapman, Esquire, Sacramento City Attorney’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Officer Gary Dahl, Police Chief Rick Braziel, and the City of Sacramento appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by the estate of James Garcia. Dahl contends that the district court improperly denied him qualified immunity; the Chief and the City argue that we have pendant jurisdiction over their appeals.

The parties agree that the canine bite was a serious intrusion on Garcia’s Fourth Amendment rights. But the officers were seeking a fleeing suspect who had committed a violent felony. See Sykes v. United States, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2267, 2270, 180 L.Ed.2d 60 (2011). In addition, the officers involved attempted less forceful methods to arrest the suspect before deploying a canine, and Dahl gave a canine warning before beginning his search for the suspect. Under the circumstances, it was not clearly established that the Fourth Amendment required Dahl to provide an additional warning before deploying his canine again. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236, 245, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009); Miller v. Clark Cnty., 340 F.3d 959, 964-66 (9th Cir.2003).

Because we do not reach the issue whether Garcia adequately alleged a constitutional violation, our resolution of Dahl’s appeal does not necessarily resolve Garcia’s § 1983 claims against the Chief and the City. We may not exercise pendant appellate jurisdiction over such claims, because they are not “inextricably intertwined” with the issue of Dahl’s entitlement to qualified immunity. See Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir.1998).

REVERSED in part; DISMISSED in part; and REMANDED. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Garcia died of unrelated causes while this suit was pending.
     
      
      . Garcia's motion to take judicial notice, filed with this Court on January 14, 2013, is DENIED as moot. Garcia's motion to file physical exhibits, filed with this Court on January 24, 2013, is GRANTED.