Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02376/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02376-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ernest Joseph Atencio, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-02376-PHX-PGR

ORDER 

 The Court has before it City Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending 

Appeal and Request for Clarification as to the State Law Claim Only (Doc. 447), Sheriff 

Arpaio’s Separate Motion to Clarify/Reconsider Ruling that Arpaio can be Responsible 

in his Individual Capacity for the Medical Defendants’ Conduct (Doc. 448), and 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Appeal as Frivolous (Doc. 454). The Court also has before 

it the various joinders in the pending motions and the responses and replies to the 

motions (see Doc. 448, 449, 474, 478, 499, 500). The Court will grant in part and deny 

in part the Motion to Certify Appeal as Frivolous (Doc. 454). The Court will grant City 

Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal and Request for Clarification 

(Doc. 447). The Court will deny Sheriff Arpaio’s Motion to Clarify/Reconsider Ruling 

Case 2:12-cv-02376-PGR Document 501 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 13
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(Doc. 448). 

A. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Appeal as Frivolous (Doc. 454). 

 Defendants have filed notices of appeal from this Court’s denial of summary 

judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. Plaintiffs move to certify those appeals as 

frivolous. The Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs’ motion. 

 An order denying a motion for summary judgment on the question of qualified 

immunity generally is immediately appealable. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, 

2018 (2014). This immediate appealability is “because such orders conclusively 

determine whether the defendant is entitled to immunity from suit,” an issue that “is both 

important and completely separate from the merits of the action,” and also “could not be 

effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment because by that time the immunity 

from standing trial will have been irretrievably lost.” Id. at 2019. 

 However, not all orders denying summary judgment on the issue of qualified 

immunity are immediately appealable. “[A] defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified 

immunity defense, may not appeal a district court’s summary judgment order insofar as 

that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a ‘genuine’ issue of fact 

for trial.” Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995). On the other hand, “summary 

judgment determinations are appealable when they resolve a dispute concerning an 

‘abstract issu[e] of law’ relating to qualified immunity – typically, the issue whether the 

federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly established.’” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 

U.S. 299, 313 (1996) (emphasis and alteration in original, citation omitted). 

 As the Ninth Circuit explained, “both the denial of a defendant’s motion as well as 

Case 2:12-cv-02376-PGR Document 501 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 13
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

a ruling by the trial judge that ‘if the facts are as asserted by the plaintiff, the defendant is 

not immune,’” may be immediately appealed. Mueller v. Auker, 576 F.3d 979, 987 (9th

Cir. 2009). However, a challenge to the “sufficiency of the evidence in support of the 

factual claims made by the parties” is not immediately appealable. Kennedy v. City of 

Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added); see Wilkins v. City of 

Oakland, 350 F.3d 949, 951 (9th Cir. 2003) (“It is well-established that ‘an appellate court 

lacks jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the trial court’s conclusion that an issue of fact exists.’” (Citation omitted.)). 

 1. City Defendants 

 a. Escort to linescan room 

 As to the escort of Atencio from the holding cell to the linescan room, City 

Defendants contend that whether Defendant Hanlon is entitled to qualified immunity is a 

purely legal issue because there is a video of the event, and that this video demonstrates 

that Hanlon merely had his hands on Atencio’s back and shoulders to guide him and did 

not manipulate Atencio’s hands, or in any way cause Atencio to bend over. However, the 

quality of the video provided to the Court, which recorded most but not all of the escort, 

was insufficiently clear for the Court to rule out the version of the escort put forward by 

Plaintiffs, particularly in light of the testimony of Matthew Laymen, who indicated that 

the officers escorted Atencio by leading him with his hands and arms bent in what looked 

like a very painful position and that Atencio’s statements indicated that the officers were 

hurting him. Further, the video demonstrates that Atencio was neither aggressive nor 

resistant during the escort, and other evidence indicates that Atencio was “humorous,” 

Case 2:12-cv-02376-PGR Document 501 Filed 09/15/15 Page 3 of 13
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

“jovial,” and non-aggressive. Moreover, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable 

to Plaintiffs, this alleged use of force during the escort was merely a step in the series of 

events that occurred in the linescan room and the safe cell that led to Atencio’s death. 

Indeed, the subsequent events in the linescan room and safe cell may well have never 

happened but for the alleged use of force during the escort. 

 As the Court found in denying summary judgment, there is a genuine factual 

dispute as to what actually occurred during the escort to the linescan room and what 

Hanlon knew at the time. Under Plaintiffs’ versions of the facts, Hanlon would not be 

entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force under these circumstances would 

be objectively unreasonable. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015) 

(“a pretrial detainee must show only that the force purposely or knowingly used against 

him was objectively unreasonable” with such objective unreasonableness turning “on the 

‘facts and circumstances of each particular case,’” and “from the perspective of a 

reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 

20/20 vision of hindsight”). 

 This genuine factual dispute does not render an appeal from the Court’s denial of 

summary judgment frivolous in its entirety. To the extent City Defendants seek to 

challenge on appeal the Court’s determination that, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to Plaintiffs, Hanlon would not be entitled to qualified immunity based on his 

conduct escorting Atencio to the linescan room, appellate jurisdiction exists and thus, 

such an appeal would not be frivolous. See Mueller, 576 F.3d at 987 (“a ruling by the 

trial judge that ‘if the facts are as asserted by the plaintiff, the defendant is not immune’” 

Case 2:12-cv-02376-PGR Document 501 Filed 09/15/15 Page 4 of 13
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

qualifies for an interlocutory appeal); Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1060 (appellate jurisdiction 

exists over question of whether, viewing issues of fact in favor of plaintiff, officer’s 

actions were objectively unreasonable). 

 However, to the extent City Defendants seek to challenge on appeal the sufficiency

of the evidence to support Plaintiffs’ version of the facts, and the Court’s determination 

that a genuine issue of fact exists, such an appeal would be frivolous. See Kennedy, 439 

F.3d at 1060 (no appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal challenging sufficiency 

of the evidence supporting factual claims made by the parties); Wilkins, 350 F.3d at 951 

(no appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal challenging sufficiency of evidence 

supporting district court’s determination an issue of fact exists). 

 b. Linescan room 

 As to the use of force in the linescan room, City Defendants again rely on the 

presence of a video recording of the event and contend that the question of qualified 

immunity is thus a purely legal issue. However, viewed in the light most favorable to 

Plaintiffs, this video recording, when combined with other evidence in the record, 

demonstrates that Atencio was not being combative, violent, aggressive, or threatening 

towards anyone; that Atencio’s demeanor was “humorous,” “jovial,” and non-aggressive; 

that the officers, including Hanlon and French, knew that Atencio was in a state of 

psychosis and confusion, and was having trouble following directions; that Atencio’s 

response to the command to remove his shoes by removing one shoe then asking the 

officer to remove his other shoe (or telling the officer to remove his own shoe), pointing 

at Hanlon, and crossing his arms over his chest were a result of Atencio’s psychosis, 

Case 2:12-cv-02376-PGR Document 501 Filed 09/15/15 Page 5 of 13
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

confusion, and difficulty following directions; that if Atencio had been given time and 

opportunity to understand and follow the direction to remove his other shoe, the use of 

force may not have been needed; and that Atencio was not posing a threat or a risk of 

harm to anyone. Under this view of the facts, it was objectively unreasonable for an 

officer to immediately grab and engage in a physical struggle with Atencio and take 

Atencio to the ground through the use of a choke hold/carotid hold. See Kingsley, 135 S. 

Ct. at 2473. 

 The officers clearly dispute Plaintiffs’ version of the facts and argue that the 

dispute is purely legal, citing Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014), and Scott v. 

Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007). However, the videos in both Plumhoff and Scott not only 

contradicted the plaintiffs’ versions of the events, but also made it clear that the suspect 

was putting other civilians and officers at risk, and that the officers’ conduct in using 

force to end that risk was reasonable. See Plumhoff, 134 S. Ct. at 2021-22; Scott, 550 

U.S. at 379-380, 386. In contrast, here the video neither contradicts the version of the 

facts put forward by Plaintiffs nor makes it clear that Atencio was creating a threat or a 

risk to the officers or others in the jail. The existence of the video in the present case 

does not, therefore, transform the factual disputes into a purely legal question, and these 

factual disputes preclude a grant of summary judgment on the issue of qualified 

immunity. 

 The genuine factual disputes do not, however, render an appeal from the Court’s 

denial of summary judgment frivolous in its entirety. To the extent City Defendants seek 

to challenge on appeal the Court’s determination that, viewing the evidence in the light 

Case 2:12-cv-02376-PGR Document 501 Filed 09/15/15 Page 6 of 13
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

most favorable to Plaintiffs, neither Hanlon nor French would be entitled to qualified 

immunity based on their conduct in the linescan room, appellate jurisdiction exists and 

thus, such an appeal would not be frivolous. See Mueller, 576 F.3d at 987; Kennedy, 439 

F.3d at 1060. On the other hand, to the extent City Defendants seek to challenge on 

appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support Plaintiffs’ version of the facts, and the 

Court’s determination that a genuine issue of fact exists, such an appeal would be 

frivolous. See Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1060; Wilkins, 350 F.3d at 951. 

 As to the uses of force that occurred after Hanlon and French were no longer 

physically involved, e.g., the facial strikes by Hatton and the Taser deployment by 

Officer Weiers, the Court denied summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity 

because there was a genuine factual dispute as to whether Hanlon and French were 

integral participants in that use of force. To the extent City Defendants seek to challenge 

on appeal whether the integral participant theory can be applied under the circumstances 

of this case and, if so, whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 

Plaintiffs, City Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, such an appeal would not 

be frivolous. See Behrens, 516 U.S. at 313 (summary judgment decisions appealable 

when they resolve dispute about abstract issue of law); Mueller, 576 F.3d at 987; 

Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1060. On the other hand, to the extent City Defendants seek to 

challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support Plaintiffs’ version of the 

facts and the Court’s determination that a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether 

Hanlon and French were integral participants, such an appeal would be frivolous. See 

Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1060; Wilkins, 350 F.3d at 951. 

Case 2:12-cv-02376-PGR Document 501 Filed 09/15/15 Page 7 of 13
- 8 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 2. Arpaio Defendants 

 Arpaio defendants were participants in the struggle with Atencio, and assisted with 

taking Atencio to the floor and holding him down on the floor in a “dog pile” in the 

linescan room while Hatton delivered strikes to Atencio’s facial region and Weiers used 

the Taser on Atencio. Arpaio Defendants also were participants in holding Atencio down 

in the safe cell while Hatton delivered a knee strike to Atencio. In addition to that noted 

above, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, demonstrates that 

once the officers physically engaged with Atencio, Atencio passively resisted; that after 

Atencio was taken to the floor, Arpaio Defendants participated in a “dog pile” to hold 

Atencio down while Defendant Weiers tased Atencio and Defendant Hatton administered 

numerous strikes to Atencio’s face; that once Atencio was transferred to the safe cell, 

Arpaio Defendants held him down while Defendant Hatton delivered a knee strike to 

Atencio’s back; and that at no point was Atencio actively aggressive or violent towards 

the officers or anyone else. Under this view of the facts, it was objectively unreasonable 

for Arpaio Defendants to hold Atencio down while officers engaged in the facial strikes 

and knee strike, and tased Atencio. See Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2473. 

 Arpaio Defendants dispute this view of the facts, and set forth their own version of 

the facts. Their version does not, however, view the facts in the light most favorable to 

Plaintiffs and, further, ignores many of the disputed facts relied upon by the Court in 

denying summary judgment. 

 There are genuine factual disputes as to what exactly happened in the linescan 

room and the safe cell, including the conduct of Atencio and the conduct of Arpaio 

Case 2:12-cv-02376-PGR Document 501 Filed 09/15/15 Page 8 of 13
- 9 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants and what they knew at the time of the use of force. These genuine factual 

disputes preclude summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity but do not 

render an appeal from the Court’s denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity 

frivolous in its entirety. To the contrary, to the extent Arpaio Defendants seek to 

challenge on appeal the Court’s determination that, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to Plaintiffs, Arpaio Defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity, 

appellate jurisdiction exists and thus, such an appeal would not be frivolous. See 

Mueller, 576 F.3d at 987; Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1060. Similarly, to the extent Arpaio 

Defendants seek to challenge on appeal whether the integral participant theory and/or 

duty to intervene can be applied under the circumstances of this case, such an appeal 

would not be frivolous. See Behrens, 516 U.S. at 313 (summary judgment decisions 

appealable when they resolve dispute about abstract issue of law); Mueller, 576 F.3d at 

987; Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1060. 

 However, to the extent Arpaio Defendants seek to challenge on appeal the 

sufficiency of the evidence to support Plaintiffs’ version of the facts, and the Court’s 

determination that a genuine issue of fact exists, such an appeal would be frivolous. See 

Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1060; Wilkins, 350 F.3d at 951. 

 3. Hatton Defendants1

 There is a genuine factual dispute regarding what actually occurred prior to 

 

1

 Hatton notes that Plaintiffs’ motion does not explicitly include Hatton 

Defendants’ appeal, likely because Plaintiffs filed their motion on the same day that 

Hatton Defendants filed their notice of appeal (see Doc. 453, 454). 

Case 2:12-cv-02376-PGR Document 501 Filed 09/15/15 Page 9 of 13
- 10 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Hatton’s delivery of the face and knee strikes. Although Hatton claimed he delivered the 

strikes in self-defense (at least as to the facial strikes), other evidence indicates that 

Atencio was helpless and defenseless at the time Hatton made these strikes and that the 

strikes were unreasonable, unjustifiable, and excessive. This genuine factual dispute 

precludes summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. The factual dispute 

does not, however, render an appeal regarding the denial of summary judgment on 

qualified immunity frivolous in its entirety. To the contrary, to the extent Hatton seeks to 

challenge on appeal the Court’s determination that, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to Plaintiffs, Hatton would not be entitled to qualified immunity, appellate 

jurisdiction exists and thus, such an appeal would not be frivolous. See Mueller, 576 

F.3d at 987; Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1060. However, to the extent Hatton seeks to 

challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support Plaintiffs’ version of the 

facts and the Court’s determination that a genuine issue of fact exists, such an appeal 

would be frivolous. See Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1060; Wilkins, 350 F.3d at 951. 

B. City Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal and Request 

for Clarification as to State Law Claim (Doc. 447). 

 1. Motion to Stay 

 In the Ninth Circuit, an interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity 

divests the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with trial unless the trial court has 

certified the appeal as frivolous or waived. See Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th

Cir. 1992). As discussed above, the Court will deny in large part Plaintiffs’ request to 

certify Defendants’ appeals as frivolous. Thus, the interlocutory appeal filed by 

Case 2:12-cv-02376-PGR Document 501 Filed 09/15/15 Page 10 of 13
- 11 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants divests the Court of jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims. 

 City Defendants move to stay the proceedings as to the remaining state law 

wrongful death claim pending the outcome of the appeal. Plaintiffs object to the 

requested stay. 

 Failure to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal could result in 

two separate trials, inconsistent results, the waste of judicial resources, and increased 

expense to the parties. Moreover, the facts relating to Plaintiffs’ state law wrongful death 

claim are inextricably intertwined with the facts relating to their federal constitutional 

claims as demonstrated by the First Amended Complaint, which alleges the same 

wrongful conduct of Defendants violated both state law and § 1983. 

 On the other hand, the Court recognizes that a stay of these proceedings, and the 

resulting delay in resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims, will injure Plaintiffs, and that there is a 

risk that witness memories will fade. However, discovery has been completed in this 

action, with only final pretrial proceedings and trial remaining. This posture significantly 

decreases the risk of fading memories impacting the outcome of this litigation. 

 The Court finds that, under the circumstances of this case, a stay of the 

proceedings is appropriate. The Court will thus exercise its discretion and stay these 

proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal. 

 2. Motion for Clarification 

 City Defendants seek clarification of the Court’s Order regarding the denial of 

summary judgment on the state law claim against them. City Defendants argued in their 

motion for summary judgment (Doc. 299) that their use of force was reasonable and that 

Case 2:12-cv-02376-PGR Document 501 Filed 09/15/15 Page 11 of 13
- 12 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

they were therefore immune from liability on the state law claim. The Court did not, in its 

Order (Doc. 442) denying summary judgment, separately discuss whether City 

Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the state law claim. However, as 

discussed above and in the Court’s Order (Doc. 442), the evidence viewed in the light 

most favorable to Plaintiffs demonstrates that Hanlon’s and French’s uses of force on 

Atencio were objectively unreasonable. Hence, Hanlon and French are not entitled to 

summary judgment based on the protection from liability provided by A.R.S. § 13-409 

(providing defense of justification if certain conditions are met, including that a 

“reasonable person would believe that such force is immediately necessary” (emphasis 

added)).2

C. Arpaio’s Motion to Clarify/Reconsider Ruling Arpaio Can be Responsible in 

Individual Capacity for Medical Defendants’ Conduct (Doc. 448). 

Sheriff Arpaio’s Motion to Clarify/Reconsider does not seek clarification as to the 

Court’s Order but instead merely seeks to have the Court reconsider its previous rulings 

and repeats arguments made previously by Arpaio. The request for reconsideration will 

be denied as untimely. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(2) (“[A]ny motion for reconsideration shall be 

filed not later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the filing of the Order that is the 

subject of the motion”). 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Appeal as Frivolous (Doc. 

454) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted to the extent that 

Defendants seek to challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support 

Plaintiffs’ version of the facts and the Court’s determination that a genuine issue of fact 

 

2

 To the extent City Defendants seek reconsideration of the Court’s denial of 

summary judgment on the state law claim, their request is untimely. See LRCiv 

7.2(g)(2). 

Case 2:12-cv-02376-PGR Document 501 Filed 09/15/15 Page 12 of 13
- 13 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

exists. The motion is otherwise denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that City Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings 

Pending Appeal (Doc. 447-1) is granted. The proceedings are stayed pending the 

outcome of the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that City Defendants’ Request for Clarification as to 

the State Law Claim Only (Doc. 447-2) is granted to the extent it seeks clarification. 

Defendants Hanlon and French are not entitled to summary judgment on the state law 

claims based on A.R.S. § 13-409. To the extent City Defendants seek reconsideration, 

the request is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sheriff Arpaio’s Separate Motion to 

Clarify/Reconsider Ruling that Arpaio can be Responsible in his Individual Capacity for 

the Medical Defendants’ Conduct (Doc. 448) is denied. 

Dated this 14th day of September, 2015. 

Case 2:12-cv-02376-PGR Document 501 Filed 09/15/15 Page 13 of 13