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 YANIR

A SERR ANO; C ARM EN GAR C IA; IGNAC IO SERR A NO; LOR ENZO SER

R ANO, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. M ENH TRIEU; C OUNTY OF SAN M ATEO, De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-15744 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-04081-M M C
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M ax ine M
. C he sne y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 15, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd REINHAR

D T and FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. The pla intiffs a

ppe a l the sum

m ary judgm e nt e n te re d in fa

vor of the de fe nda n ts in the i r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging e xc e ssive forc e in the shooting de ath of Ya

nira Se rrano by

San M ate o She riff’ s De puty M e nh Trie u. W e have 

# FIL ED FEB 23 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, were vie w the grant of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo, se e Lope

z-Vale nzue la v . Arpaio , 770 F.3d 772, 777 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ), an d we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d the pla intiffs “ fa ile d to ra ise a tria b le issue a s to the i r c la i m tha t De puty Trie u’ s use of de a dly forc e wa s
unre a s ona

ble .” Vie w e d in thelight m o st fa vora ble to the pla intiffs, the e vide nc e shows M s. Se rrano wa s wie lding a n 11-inc h ste ak knife with a six-inc h bla de in a

n
a ggre s sive m ann e r, pursue d De puty Trie u a s he re tre ate d for a pproxim ate l y 160 fe e t , ignore d De puty

Trie u’ s c om

m ands to stop a

n d wa s within 15 to 20 fe e t of De puty Trie u whe n he fire d a

single shot. Deputy

Trie u wa s not re q

uire d to
c ontinuehis re tre at. Se e Gle nn v . W a shington C

o unty , 673 F.3d 864, 876 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ Offic e rs ‘ ne e d not a va il the m se l ve s of the le a st intrusive m e ans of
re sponding to a

n e xige n t situa tion; the y ne e d only

a c t within tha

t ra nge of c onduc t
we ide ntify

a s re a sona

ble .’ ” (quoting Sc ott v . He nric h , 39 F.3d 912, 915 (9th C ir. 1994))); Smith v . C

i ty of He me t , 394 F.3d 689, 704 (9th C ir. 2005) (e n ba nc ) (“ [W ] he re a

suspe c t thre ate ns a

n offic e r with a

we a pon suc h a s a

gun or a knife , the offic e r is justifie d

in using de a dly

forc e .” ). At m inim

um , sum m ary judgm e nt wa s prope r be c a

use the pla intiffs ha

ve not pointe d to a

ny c a se that would ha

ve pla c e d De puty Trie u on “ fa ir notic e ” tha t the use of de a dly

forc e wa s unc onstitutiona l
2unde r the c irc um sta nc e s of this c a se . Se e C

ity & C o unty of San Franc isc o v . She e han , 135 S. C t. 1765, 1777 (2015). 2. The pla intiffs’ c onte ntion tha t the distric t

c o urt m isa

pplie d the sum

m ary judgm e nt sta

nda rd is without m

e rit. Sum m ary judgm e n t wa s a

ppropria te be c a use the e vide n c e , vie we d in thelight m ost fa vora ble to the pla intiffs, e sta

blishe d De puty Trie u’ s use of de a d l y

forc e wa s re a sona

ble . This c onc lusion did not de pe nd on De puty

Trie u’ s c re dibility . The c ourt, m ore ove r, vie we d e a c h of the fa c t ua l dispute s the pla intiffs ide ntify – De puty Trie u ’ s m a

nne r of a pproa c h ing the Se rran o re side nc e ; the dista nc e be twe e n De p uty Trie u a nd M s. Se rrano at the tim e of the shooting; a

n d M s. Se rrano’ s a

bility to a m bula te a s she a dva

nc e d on Trie u – in the pla intiffs’ favor. 3. De puty

Trie u is not lia

ble ba se d on e ve nts a

nte c e de nt to theshooting. The Supre m e C ourt re

j e c te d this c ourt’ s provoc at ion doc t rine in C ounty of Los Ange le s v . Me n de

z , 137 S. C t. 1539, 1544 (2017). Although a proxim ate c a

use the o ry survive s M

e nde z , the pla intiffs ha

ve not ide ntifie d a

c onstitutiona

l viola tion pre c e ding theshooting. Se e id. at 1548-49. The pla intiffs “ c annot ‘ e sta

blish a Fourth Am e ndm e n t

viola tion ba se d m e re ly on ba d ta c tic s tha t re sult in a

de a dly
c onfronta tion tha t c ould ha ve be e n avoide d.’ ” S

he e han , 135 S. C t . at 1777 (quoting Billington v. Smith , 292 F.3d 1177, 1190 (9th C i r. 2002)).
3AFFIRM E D.

4