N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ESTATE OF TYLER

S. R USHING; SC OTT K. R

USHING; PAULA L. R USHING, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla nts,
v. AG PR IVATE PR O TEC TION, INC .; EDGAR SANC HEZ; C ITY OF C HIC O; C HIC O POLIC E DEPAR TM ENT; SC OTT R

UPPEL; C EDR IC SC HW YZER ; ALEX FLIEHR ; JER

EM Y GAGNEB IN; C OUNTY OF B UTTE; B UTTE C OUNTY SHER IFF’ S OFFIC E; IAN DIC KER SON,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-16428 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-01692-M C E-AC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 5, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd C LIFTON a

nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED NOV 30 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Pla intiffs-Appe l la nts Esta te of Ty le r S. R

ushing (“ R

ushing” ), Sc ott K. R ushing, a nd Pa ula L. R ushing brought c la im s in the Distric t C o urt a rising from

an e nc ounte r re sulting in R

ushing’ s de ath a ga inst De fe nda nts-Appe l le e s the C ity

of C hic o, the C hic o Polic e De pa rtm e nt, a nd C h ic o offic e rs Sc o tt R uppe l, C e dric Sc hwy z e r, Ale x Flie hr, a

nd Je re m y Ga gne bin (c olle c t ive ly

the “ C ity De fe nda nts” ); the C ounty

of B utte , the B utte C ounty She riff’ s De pa

rtm e nt, a n d B utte C o unty De puty She riff Ian Dic k e rson (the “ C ounty De fe n da nts” ); a nd AG Priva

te Prote c tion, Inc ., a

nd its e m ploy e e Edga

r Sanc he z (the “ Se c urity

De fe nda nts” ). Pla i ntiffs c ha lle nge the Distric t C ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e n t, whic h we
re vie w de novo, on the fe d e ra l a nd sta te c la im s (C la im s 1-8) in fa vor of the individual C ity

and C ounty

De fe nda nts, on thesta

te c l a im s (C la im s 4-8) in fa vor of the non-individua

l C ity and C ounty

De fe nda n ts, a nd on the sta

te tort c la im s (C la im s 6-8) in fa

v o r of the Se c urity

De fe nda nts. 1 Se e Lope

z-Vale nzue la v . Arpaio , 770 F.3d 772, 777 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ). W e m a y not a ffirm

a grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt if, whe n

vie w ing the
re c o rd, a s we m

u s t, in thelight m ost fa

vora ble to Pla intiffs, we c onc lude tha t “ a

1 As the Distric t C ourt note d, Pla intiffs only oppose the gran t of sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the Se c urity

De fe n da nts on C la i m s 6-8 “be c a

use disc o ve ry re ve a le d tha

t [the Se c urity

De fe nda nts’ ] c o nduc t doe s not qua lify a s sta te a c tion” a s re quire d by

C la im s 1-5.
2 0
- 1 6 4 2 8 2ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c o uld re solve a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t in thenonm oving pa rty ’ s favor[.] ” Brav o v . C i ty of Santa Maria , 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th C ir. 2011). W e c onc lude tha

t suc h ge nuine issue s of m ate ria l fa c t re m a in tha

t c ould le a d a re a sona ble jury to find tha

t Flie hr’ s ta se ring of R

ushing viola

te d a right of R ushing’ s. B e c a

use the Distric t C ourt re lie d e ntire ly on its e rrone ous holding tha t the o ffic e rs’ “ re a sona

ble be havior justifie s gra

nting e a c h of the ir m o tions in the ir
e ntire t y on the m e rits,” we va c ate the Distric t C ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of the individual C i ty De fe nda n ts on the fe de ra l a

nd sta te c la im s (C la im s 1-8) a nd the non-individua

l C ity De fe nda nts on thesta

te c la im s (C la i m s 4-8). W e re m and for the Distric t C ourt to a ddre ss in thefirst insta nc e whe the r the individual C ity De fe nda nts a re prote c te d by

qua lifie d im

m unity and whic h , if a

ny , of the C ity De fe nda nts othe r tha

n Flie hr m ay

be lia ble for the ta se ring. W e a ffirm the Distric t C ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Dic ke rson on thefe de ra l a nd sta te
c la im s (C la im s 1-8) a

nd the non-individual C ounty De fe n da nts on thesta

t e c la im s

2 0
- 1 6 4 2 8 3(C la im s 4-8). Fina lly , we a ffirm the Distric t C ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in favor of the Se c urity

De fe nda nts on thesta

te tort c la im s (C l a im s 6-8). 2 1. Sum m ary judgm e nt should not ha

ve be e n grante d in fa

vor of the individual C ity

De fe nda nts on thefe de ra l a

nd sta te c la im s (C la im s 1-8) or the nonindividual C ity

De fe nda nts on thesta

te c la im s (C la i m s 4-8). Ge nuine dispute s of
m ate ria l fa c t e x ist tha

t c ould le a d a

re a sona ble jury , vie w ing the fa c ts in thelight
m ost fa vora ble to Pla intiffs, to c onc lude tha t Flie hr viola

te d a right of R

ushing’ s whe n he ta se re d R

ushing in the

ba c k ove r one m inute a fte r R ushing fe ll fa c e down on the floor a fte r be ing shot twic e by R uppe l. Se e Ge orgev . Edholm , 752 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th C ir. 2014). A ge nuine issue of m at e ria l fa c t e x ists c onc e rning the loc ation of R ushing’ s right ha nd a nd his m otionle ssne ss a fte r fa lling to the floor. The vide o shows tha t
a fte r R ushing wa s shot twic e by

R uppe l a nd fe ll to thefloor, R

ushing’ s right ha

nd
wa s e xte n de d a

way from his torso. At m

ost, his right ha

nd wa s pa rtia lly c onc e a le d by a bathroom

furnishing, whic h c ontra dic ts Flie hr’ s c la im , re sta te d by the Distric t C ourt, tha t R u s hing “ fe ll fa c e forward on the ground with his le ft a rm out a nd his

2 W e gran t Pla intiffs’ M otion to Supplem e nt the R e c ord with thec om ple te transc ripts of thede positions of Flie hr and R u ppe l
. Se e Fe d . R . App. P. 10(e ) and 27. W hile the c om

ple te tra nsc ripts we re not file d, the y we re provide d a s c ourte sy c opie s to the Distric t C ourt pe r E.D. C a l . Loc a l R ule 113(j), whic h only

pe rm its pa rtie s to file the pa ge s c ite d in the ir ple a dings a nd m otions.
2 0
- 1 6 4 2 8 4right a

rm unde rne ath him .” Sim ila

rly , the vide o c onflic ts, a lbe it le ss sta rkly , with Flie hr’ s c la im

tha t R u shing “ flinc h[e d] ” and m ove d slightly a fte r fa lling to the floor. Though not e

ntire l y c l e ar, the vide o would pe rm it a re a sona ble jury to
c onc lude tha

t R ushing re m a ine d m otionle ss for ove r one m inute be fore Flie hr ta se re d him

in the ba c k. In light of the se dispute s, we turn to whe the r those dispute s a re “ ge nuine dispute s of m ate ria l fa c t” tha t c ould le a d a

re a sona ble jury to find tha

t the individual C ity

De fe nda nts viola te d a right of R

ushing’ s. Apply ing the “ obje c tive
re a s ona ble ne s s” sta

n d ard, we hold tha

t a re a sona ble jury c ould c onc lude tha t a right of R ushing’ s wa s viola

te d by Flie hr’ s ta se ring of R

u shing but c o uld not
c onc lude tha

t a right wa s viola

te d by the offic e rs’ c onduc t

be fore ha nd. Se e Graham v . C

onnor , 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). First, ta king thee ve nts in orde r, a re a sona b le jury c ould not find tha

t the initia l dog biteor R

uppe l’ s first shot we re unre a sona ble give n the “ thre at

of se rious phy sic a l ha

rm ” tha t R ushing pose d. Pla intiffs ide ntify the ke y que stion gove rning the re a sona

ble n e ss of the se use s of forc e : whe t he r the offic e rs “ ha d a

n obje c tive ly
re a s ona ble ba sis for be lie ving tha t [R ushing] pose d

a thre at of se rious phy s ic a l ha rm [.] ” Orn v
. C

ity o f Tac oma , 949 F.3d 1167, 1174 (9th C ir. 2020). Pla intiffs
argue that R

u shing’ s “ re s ista

nc e wa s ine ffe c tua l ” be c a u se he only

wie lde d

2 0
- 1 6 4 2 8 5“ m ake shift we a pons,” but c o n c e de tha

t he use d a

porc e la in sha

rd of a broke n toile t to a tta c k Sc hwy z e r. W e c o nc l ude that R ushing pose d a

thre at tha t wa s suffic ie nt to justify R u ppe l’ s first shot. Se c ond, a re a sona ble jury c o uld not find R

uppe l’ s se c ond shot, whic h
oc c urre d just two se c onds a fte r his first shot, unre a sona ble . The “ re a sona

b l e ne ss” inquiry “ m u st e m body a llowa nc e for the fa c t tha

t polic e offic e rs a

re ofte n forc e d to
m ake split-se c ond judgm e nts— in c irc um sta n c e s tha t are te nse , unc e rta in, a

nd
ra pidly e v olving[.] ” Graham , 490 U.S. a t 396-97. He re , the ra

pid suc c e s sion of the first a nd se c o nd shots, which

is undispute d a

n d e vide nc e d by

the vide o, favors the offic e rs. Third, in c ontra st to R

uppe l’ s first a

nd se c ond shots, a re a sona ble jury c ould find Flie hr’ s ta se ring of R u shing unre a sona

ble . W e have he ld tha

t a ta se r in da

rt
m ode “ c onstitute [s] an inte rm e diate , signific a n t le ve l of forc e ,” Bry an v . Mac Phe rson , 630 F.3d 805, 826 (9th C ir. 2010), tha t c an be unre a sona

ble whe n
a pplie d to a

suspe c t who is a lre a dy

“ re nde re d he lple s s,” LaLondev . C ounty of Riv e rside , 204 F.3d 947, 961 (9th C ir. 2000), or is “ a de quate l y subdue d,” J ohnson
v . Bay Are a Rapid Transit Dist. , 724 F.3d 1159, 1170 (9th C ir. 2013). Our a na ly sis of re a sona

ble ne ss in C

o r te sluna v . Le on p rovide s a

use ful c om

pa rison a nd wa s not
a ddre s se d by

the Supre m e C ourt’ s re c e nt re ve rsa l sole ly on the issue of whe the r
2 0
- 1 6 4 2 8 6the o ffic e r in C orte sluna viola

te d c le arly

e sta b lishe d la wan d thus is e ntitle d to qua lifie d im

m unity . 979 F.3d 645 (9th C ir. 2020), r e v ’d on qualified immunity grounds sub nom
. Riv as-Ville gas v . C orte sluna , No. 20-1539, 2021 W L 4822662,
at *1 (U.S. Oc t. 18, 2021). In C orte sluna , we he ld tha

t , “ [t] ak ing Pla intiff’ s ve rsion of the fa c ts a s true ,” an offic e r’ s use of inte rm e d iate forc e wa s unre a sona ble in a
c a se in whic h

the offic e r “ le an[e d] too ha rd on [the suspe c t’ s ] ba c k ” while the suspe c t wa s prone , ha d be e n pre viously injure d by othe r offic e rs, a

n d wa s “ not
re sisting”and “ no longe r pose d a risk.” Id. at 653. The fa c ts he re are e v e n m ore sugge s tive tha

t Flie hr’ s ta se ring wa s unre a sona b le , give n tha t the suspe c t in C orte s luna wa s shot by

be an ba g rounds a

n d wa s undispute dly m oving while “ ly ing fa c e down on theground.” Id. In J one s v . Las Ve

gas Me tro. Polic e De

p’t , we found “ a

tria ble issue of fa c t
a s to whe the r the offic e rs we re re a sona b le in the de gre e of forc e the y de ploy e d”
a fte r the suspe c t’ s body

“ ‘ loc ke d up’ a s a

re sult of re pe ate d ta se r shoc k s” while “ he ha d no we a

pon a nd wa s m aking no thre ate ning sounds or ge sture s” and “ wa s prone
and surrounde d by

m ultipleoffic e rs.” 873 F.3d 1123, 1130-31 (9th C ir. 2017). W e he ld in Guy

v . C ity of San Die

go : [E] ve n whe n polic e offic e rs re a sona bly m ust ta ke forc e ful a c tions in
re sponse to a

n inc ide nt, a

nd e ve n whe n suc h forc e ful a c tions a re pe rm issible

2 0
- 1 6 4 2 8 7at first, if theoffic e rs go too fa r by unne c e ssa

rily inflic ting forc e and pa in
a fte r a pe rson is subdue d, the n the forc e , unne c e ssa ry in pa rt of the a c tion,
c an still be

c onside re d e xc e ssive
. 608 F.3d 582, 589 (9th C ir. 2010). A re a sona ble jury c ould find tha

t the offic e rs in this c a s e sim ila

rly we nt “ t oo fa

r.” Id. Although the Distric t

C o urt did not re a c h qua l ifie d im m unity , 3 we have disc re tion to de c ide “ in the first insta nc e ” the le ga l que stion whe the r the “ a sse rte d fe de ra l right wa s c le arly

e sta blishe d ” at

the tim e of the offe nse . De Boe r v . Pe nnington , 206 F.3d 857, 964 (9th C ir. 2000) (quoting E lde r v . Hollow ay , 510 U.S. 510, 516 (1993)) (deny ing qua lifie d im m unity in the first insta

n c e ), v ac ate d on othe r grounds sub nom. C ity of Be llingham v . De

Boe r , 532 U.S. 992 (2001);
ac c ord Me ndoza v . Bloc k, 27 F.3d 1357, 1360 (9th C ir. 1994) (“ B e c a use this [qua lifie d im

m unity ] inquiry involve s a

que stion of la

w, the re is no re a son we c annot, in our discre tion, de c ide it in thefirst insta nc e .” ). W e c onc lude tha

t, c onstruing the

fa c ts in thelight m ost fa

vora b le to Pla i ntiffs, “ a re a sona

ble offic e r would ha

ve ha d fa ir notic e tha

t the forc e e m

ploy e d

3 Although Prong 2 wa s not re a c he d, the Distric t C ourt wa s c orre c t in holding tha t the i ndividua l C ity

and C ounty

De fe nda nts prope rly

a sse rte d the de fe nse of qua lifie d im

m unity by a ffirm ative ly

sta ting thede fe nse in a

re sponsiveple a ding a s re quire d by

Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 8(c )(1).
2 0
- 1 6 4 2 8

8wa s unla

wful.” Boy d v . Be n ton C

ounty , 372 F.3d 773, 781 (9th C ir. 2004). As our
c ita tions to Bry an , LaLonde , J o hnson , J one s , a n d Guy m ake c le ar, it wa s c le arly
e sta blishe d at the tim e of the se e ve nts tha t an offic e r ha s a

signific antly

dim inishe d inte re s t in e ve n the use of a n inte rm e diate le ve l of forc e , suc h a s a ta se r, a fte r a suspe c t ha s be e n re n de re d he lple ss. In J one s , for e x am

ple , we de nie d

qua lifie d im m unity to a n offic e r who a

p p lie d “ c ontinuous, re

pe ate d, a nd sim ulta ne ous ta sings” t o a suspe c t w h o pose d no “ im m e diate or signific an t risk of se rious injury or de ath to theoffic e rs.” J one s , 873 F.3d a

t 1132 (noting tha

t suspe c t wa s ly ing prone , no longe r re s isting, a nd surrounde d by

offic e rs); se e also De orle v . Ruthe r ford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1285 (9th C ir. 2001) (holding use of le ss-tha

n-le tha l forc e unre a sona

ble whe re suspe c t pre se nte d “ no obje c t ive ly re a sona ble thre at” ). If the jury c onc lude d fa c tua lly

tha t R ushing did not pose

an im m e d iat e thre at be c a use a fte r be i ng shot thre e tim e s he la id still, fa c e down, with his ha nds visible , in a pool of his own blood, a ny re a sona ble offic e r should ha

ve known tha

t re pe ate d ta sings of R

ushing viola

te d c le a rly e sta blishe d la w on e xc e ssive forc e . Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse the Distric t C ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Offic e r Flie hr on the fe d e ra l a nd sta te c la i m s (C la im s 1-8). W e va c ate the Distric t C ourt’ s grant of sum m a ry judgm e nt to the re m a ining individua l C i ty De fe nda nts on thefe de ra l a

nd sta te c la im s (C l a im s 1-8) a

n d the non-individua

l

2 0
- 1 6 4 2 8 9C ity

De fe nda nts on thesta

te c la im s (C la im s 4-8). W e re m and for the Distric t C ourt to a ddre s s in the first insta nc e whic h, if a

ny , of the C ity

De fe nda nts othe r tha n Flie hr m ay

be lia ble for Flie hr’ s ta se ring of R ushing. Theissue of lia

bility should bea ddre sse d in the first insta nc e by the Distric t C ourt be c a

u se it turns on the fa c ts of the pa

rtic u l ar C ity

De fe nda nts’ role s— for e xam

ple , who he ard Flie hr
announc e his inte n tion to use the ta se r be fore de ploy ing it a nd R uppe l’ s be i ng in
c om m an d of the ope ra tion. Our ruling doe s not fore c lose future m otions for
sum m ary judgm e nt brought by

the C ity De fe n da nts othe r tha

n Flie hr. 2. W e a ffirm the Distric t C ourt’ s gra n t of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the C ounty De fe nda nts. Eve n whe n

vie wing the fa c t s in the light m ost fa v ora ble to Pla i ntiffs, a

re a sona ble jury c ould not c onc lude that Dic k e rson’ s orde ring of his dog to bite

R u s hing wa s unre a sona

ble . Inde e d, it is undispute d tha t Dic ke rson dire c te d the dog to bite

R ushing only afte r

R u shing struc k

and c ut Offic e r Sc hwy z e r with a

porc e la i n sha

rd. M ore ove r, a

re a sona ble jury c ould not c onc lude that Dic ke rson wa s a

n “ inte gra l pa

rtic ipa nt” in Flie hr’ s ta se ring of R u shing m e re ly be c a use Dic ke rson “ a ssiste d a nd a c quie sc e d at va

rious points”

to the offic e rs’
c om m on pla n. Se e N ic holson v . C

ity of Los Ange le

s , 935 F.3d 685, 691 (9th C ir. 2019) (ruling tha

t whe n a n offic e r is not the “ s ole pa rty re sponsible for a
c onstitutiona

l viola t ion,” § 1983 lia

bility is ba se d on his “ inte gra l pa rtic ipat ion” ).

2 0
- 1 6 4 2 8 10Pla i ntiffs c annot pre va il a ga inst Dic ke rson on thefe de ra l a nd sta te c la im s (C la im s 1-8) or the non-individual C ounty De fe nda nts on thesta

te c la im s (C l a im s 4-8), be c a use those c la im s re quire tha t, upon vie wing the fa c ts in thelight m ost favora ble to Pla intiffs, we c o nc lude tha t a re a sona b le jury c ould find Dic k e rson’ s c onduc t unre a s ona

ble
. 3. W e a ffirm the Distric t C ourt’ s gra n t of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the Se c urity De fe nda nts on C la im s 6-8—

the only c la i m s tha

t Pla intiffs c ha lle n ge on
a ppe a l with re ga

rd to the Se c urity

De fe nda nts. Pla intiffs ha

ve not e sta

blishe d tha

t Sanc he z ’ s unholste ring of his fire arm m a d e his subse q

ue n t use of the fire arm

in
se lf-de fe nse unre a sona

ble
. W e a gre e with theDistric t C ourt’ s ruling tha t, e ve n whe n vie wing the fa c ts in thelight m o st fa vora ble to Pla intiffs, a

re a sona ble jury
c ould not find Sa

nc he z ’ s c onduc t unre a sona ble be c a use he “ did not shoot wildly or without provoc ation” but inste a d shot “ only a fte r [he ] ha d be e n am

bushe d [and] sta bbe d at le a st twic e [.] ” Sanc he z c annot be lia ble ba s e d on his “ inte gra l pa rtic i pation” in the subse que nt use s of forc e inside the building, for which he wa s not pre se nt. Pla intiffs c annot pre va il a ga inst theSe c urity De fe nda nts on C l a im s 6- 8, whic h a ll, a

t m i nim um , re quire tha

t a re a sona ble jury c ould find tha

t Sa nc he z a c te d unre a sona

bly
.

2 0
- 1 6 4 2 8 11W ith re ga rd to the C ounty

De fe n da nts a nd the Se c urity

De fe n da nts, c osts a

re taxe d a ga inst Pla intiffs a

n d in fa vor of those de fe nda

n ts. W ith re ga

rd to the C ity De fe nda nts, Pla intiffs a

n d those de fe nda

nts sha ll be ar the i r own c osts. RE V E RSE D IN PART , AFFIRM E D IN PART , V ACAT E D IN PART , AND RE M ANDE D.

2 0
- 1 6 4 2 8 12