N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EDGAR IB ARR A M ENDOZA, a

n individual, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla nt,
v. C ITY OF LOS ANGELES, JONATHAN R OC HA, a

n individual, R ODOLFO LOPEZ, a

n individual, a

nd DOES, 1-10, inc lusive De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e s . No. 21-56203 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-10561-PSG-Ex

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2022 Pa s a de na , C A B e fore : B EA, IKUTA, a

nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . Edga r Ibarra M e ndoz a a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Los Ange le s Polic e De pa rtm e n t Offic e rs Jona

tha n R oc ha and 

# FIL ED DEC 22 2022 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.R odolfo Lope z (the Offic e rs) in his c i vil rights a c tion a l le ging viola tions of the Fourth a nd Fourte e n th Am e n dm e nts unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983. Thedistric t c ourt gran te d the Offic e rs’ m otion for sum m ary judgm e n t, a

nd Iba rra M e ndoz a a ppe a le d. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd re v ie w the orde r granting
sum m ary judgm e nt de novo. Se e Ste phe ns v . Union Pac . R.R. C o. , 935 F.3d 852, 854 (9th C i r. 2019). W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt. The distric t c ourt did not err in holding tha t the only a lle ge d insta

nc e of
e xc e ssive forc e at issueis the Offic e rs’ fa ilure to re m ove Ibarra M e n doz a from the stre e t. W e do not c onside r whe the r any a lle ge d pre -handc uffing use s of forc e we re
e xc e ssive be c a

use Ibarra M e ndoz a doe s not c ha lle nge any

suc h use s of forc e in his ope ning brie f. Se e Padge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C i r. 2009) (pe r
c uriam ). The distric t c ourt did not err in holding tha t Iba rra M e ndoz a forfe i te d his
c la im tha t the Offic e rs use d e xc e ssive forc e by “ b e at[ing] him

and thre ate n[ing] to ta se him a fte r he wa s ha

ndc uffe d,” be c a

use Ibarra M e ndoz a ra ise d tha

t c la im for the first tim e in his opposition to the sum m ary judgm e nt m otion. Se e La Asoc iac i on de Trabajadore s deLak e Fore st v . C ity of Lak e Fore s t , 624 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th C ir. 2010). W e re je c t Iba rra M e ndoz a ’ s c la im

tha t the Offic e rs le ft him ha ndc uffe d in thestre e t for “ one to five m inute s ,” be c a u se it is c ontra d ic te d by
surve i lla nc e foota ge tha

t, whilenot showing the

a c c i de nt itse lf, pla inly
2de m onstra

te s tha t only se c onds e la

pse d be twe e n the ha

ndc uffing a

nd the a c c ide nt. Se e Sc o tt v . Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380–81 (2007). Apply ing the fa c tors se t forth in Graham v . C onnor , we c onc lude that the Offic e rs’ c onduc t wa s “ ‘ obje c tive ly re a sona ble ’ in light of the

fa c ts a nd
c irc um s ta nc e s c onfronting the m .” 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). The ty p e and a m ount of forc e inflic te d by

the Offic e rs’ ina c tion wa s m inim a l, a nd a rgua bly wa s not forc e at a ll, be c a

use “ e xc e ssive forc e c la im s . . . re q uire an a ffirm ative a c t.” He rre ra v . L.A. Unifie d Sc h. Dist. , 18 F.4th 1156, 1160 (9th C ir. 2021). Asse ssing the fa c ts known to the

Offic e rs at the tim e , “ i nc luding these ve rity of the c rim e at issue ,” Graham , 490 U.S. a t 396, Iba rra M e ndoz a a dm itte d tha t he ha d a loa de d fire arm in his waistba

nd, indic ating tha

t se rious fe lonie s ha d be e n c o m m itte d. Furthe r, Ibarra

M e ndoz a ha d “ atte m

pt[e d] to e va de arre st by

flight” be fore he wa s ha ndc uffe d, Mattos v . Agarano , 661 F.3d 433, 443 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ), and
suc h “ flight im

pa c ts the c a lc ulus of whe the r [the Offic e rs] a c te d re a sona bly ,” Se idne r v . deVrie

s , 39 F.4th 591, 601 (9th C ir. 2022). W e a lso a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt to the Offic e rs on Iba

rra M e ndoz a ’ s Fourte e n th Am e ndm e nt substa ntive due proc e ss
c la im . Assum ing the “ de libe ra te indiffe re nc e ” sta nda rd a p plie s he re , s e e Porte r v . Osborn , 546 F.3d 1131, 1137 (9th C ir. 2008), Iba rra M e ndoz a did not show tha

t
3the O ffic e rs subje c tive ly inte nde d to e xpose him

to the risk of be ing run ove r while ha ndc uffe d in thestre e t. The Offic e rs re m a ine d in thestre e t with Iba rra M e ndoz a until m om e nts be fore the a c c ide nt a nd ha d to jum p out of thewa

y to a v oid be ing hit the m se lve s, a

nd the e ntire inc ide nt indisputa b ly oc c urre d within a

m atte r of
se c o nds. AFFIRM E D
.

4