N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT EVIE OQUENDO, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. LAS VEGAS M ETR OPOLITAN POLIC E DEPAR TM ENT a

n d DEREK C OLLING, De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 13-15626

D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00698-M M DPAL M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 10, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , IKUTA, a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s. The La s Ve g a s M e t

ropolita n Polic e De pa

rtm e n t (De pa

rtm e nt) a nd polic e offic e r De re k C o lling a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the i r m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt on qua lifie d im m unity grounds. W e have jurisdic tion ove r this inte rloc utory

a ppe a l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 be c a use it turns on the following issue



# FIL ED AUG 06 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.of la

w: whe the r taking the dispute d fa c t s in EvieOque ndo’ s favor (e xc e pt whe re disc re dite d by

the vide ota

pe of the inc ide nt, s e e Sc ott v . Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380–81 (2007)), Oquendo ha s de m onstra te d tha t C olling viola

te d he r son’ s c le arly e sta blishe d c onstitutiona

l right to be

fre e from e xc e ssive forc e . S e e K e nne dy v . C ity of Ridge fie ld , 439 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th C ir. 2006). The distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it de nie d C o l ling’ s a n d the De p artm e nt’ s m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt on qua lifie d im m unity grounds. R e solving a ll fa c t ua l dispute s in fa

vor of Oque ndo, e xc e pt whe re Oque ndo’ s ve rsion of thefa c ts are “ blata ntly c ontra dic te d ” by

the vide o ta

pe of the inc ide nt, Sc o t t , 550 U.S. a t 380, C olling did not viola

te any c le a rly e sta blishe d la w whe n he shot Ta

nne r C ham be rla in, se e C

ity & C nty . of S.F. v
. She e h a n , 135 S. C t. 1765, 1777 (2015). The vide o shows tha

t at the tim e C olling fire d the shot, C ham

be rla in a ppe are d to be holding a

knife to Oque ndo’ s throa t. Ne ithe r Oque ndo nor thedistric t c o urt ide n tifie d a

c a se tha t would ha

v e give n C olling “ fa ir notic e ” tha t it wa s unre a s ona

ble to use de a dly

forc e in the se c i rc um sta

nc e s. Se e id. Inde e d , our pre c e de nt indic a te s tha

t i t is re a sona

ble for an offic e r to use de a dly forc e to stop som e one who the offic e r re a sona bly be lie ve s pose s a

thre at of se rious phy sic a l ha rm to othe rs. Se e Blanford v . Sac rame nto C n ty . , 406 F.3d 1110, 1119 (9th C ir. 2005). 2The fa c t tha t C h am be rla i n pose d a

n im m e diate thre at to a

c ivilia n ra the r tha

n a polic e offic e r is im

m a te ria l to thequa lifie d im m unity ana ly sis. Se e Graham v
. C onnor , 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) (expla i ning tha t the re le va

nt c o n side ra tion is whe the r the suspe c t pose d “ a n im m e diat e thre at to thesa fe ty of the offic e rs or othe rs ” (e m

pha s is a dde d)). The distric t c ourt ide ntifie d

dispute d fa c ts, but the se are a lso not m a te ria l to C olling’ s lia bility . The pa

rtie s a gre e tha

t C ham be rla in wa s holding onto Oque

ndo with a knife in his ha nd in c lose proxim ity

to he r body , a

nd the v ide o shows tha

t at the tim e C olling fire d the shot, C ham be rla i n a p pe a re d to be holding a knife to Oque ndo’ s throa t. Unde r the se c irc um sta

nc e s, C olling ha d re a s ona ble c a use to be lie ve C ham

be rla in pose d a

n im m e diat e thre at to Oque ndo’ s sa fe ty . Se e Blanford

, 406 F.3d a

t 1116. Thevide o a lso re ve a ls tha t, from C olling’ s pe rspe c tive , it would not ha ve be e n c l e ar that Oque ndo ha d c ontrol ove r C ham be rla in’ s knife -wie lding ha nd; the ana ly sis of the thre at to Oque ndo would the re fore re m a in unc ha

nge d, e ve n if Oque ndo c an now prove she ha d suc h c ontrol. Se e id. Oque ndo’ s a sse rtion tha t C ham be rla in wa s “ n e a

ring c o m plia nc e with the offic e rs’ c om

m ands,” is unsupporte d by any e vide nc e in the re c ord. Oque ndo’ s e xpe rt re port tha t C olling’ s c onduc t wa s unre a sona ble is not itse lf suffic ie nt to de fe at the m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt, se e Billington v
. Smith , 292 F.3d 1177, 1189 (9th C ir. 2002), nor is e vide nc e tha t C olling fa ile d to 3follow depa

rtm e nta l guide line s re ga

rding a dm iniste ring wa

rnings a nd c o m m ands to suspe c ts, se e Sc ott v . He nric h , 39 F.3d 912, 915–16 (9th C ir. 1994). RE V E RSE D.

4