N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
D. W ., a m inor, by

and through he r gua rdia n a d lite m Je ssic a M artine z , individually

and a s suc c e ssor in intere st to Se rgio W e ic k; L. W ., m inor, by and through the ir gua

rdia n a d lite m M a gda le n a Lugo, individua

lly an d a s suc c e ssors in inte re st to Se rgio W e ic k; E. W ., m inor, by and through the ir gua

rdia n a d lite m M a gda le na

Lugo, individua

lly and a s suc c e s sors in intere st to Se rgio W e ic k; C R UZ W EIC K , a

n individual; STEVEN NEIL W EIC K, a

n individual, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. C OUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a n e n tity ; PETER M YER S, an individual; C HR ISTOPHER

VILLANUEVA, a

n individual, De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-55674 D.C . No. 3:17-c v-01459-W QH-AGS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Q. Ha y e s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED
JAN 8 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.Subm itte d Nove m b e r 17, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s, a nd TIGAR , *** Distric t Judge
. Se rgio W e ic k’ s (he re a fte r, “ Se rgio” ) c hildre n a nd pa re n ts, D.W ., L.W ., E.W ., C ruzW e ic k, a

nd Ste ve n Ne il W e ic k (he re a fte r c olle c tive ly , the “ W e ic ks” ),
a ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the C ounty of San Die g o, De puty

She riff Pe te r M y e rs, a

nd De puty

She riff C hristophe r Villa nue va . The W e ic k s a lle g e d c ivil rights viola tions unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983
a fte r M y e rs a

nd Villa nue va (he re a fte r c olle c tive ly , the “ De putie s” ) fata lly shot Se rgio. 1 W e a ffirm
. (1) “ ‘ Exc e ssive forc e c la im s . . . a re e va luate d

for obje c tive re a s ona

ble ne ss ba se d upon theinform ation theoffic e rs ha d whe n the c onduc t oc c urre d.’ ” C ounty of Los Ange le

s v . Me nde

z , __ U.S. __, __, 137 S. C t. 1539, 1546–47, 198 L. Ed. 2d 52 (2017).

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Jon S. Tiga

r, Unite d State s Distric t

Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.
1 The W e ic ks a lso a sse rte d sta te la w c la im s , ove r whic h

the distric t c ourt de c line d to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion. The y wa ive d re vie w of tha

t de c lina tion by not a

rguing tha

t we should dire c t

the distric t c ourt to c onside r those c la im s. Se eSmith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). 2The De putie s ha d inform ation tha

t Se rgio wa s a

rm e d with a

sa we d-off shotgun a nd ha d sa i d tha

t he re fuse d to go ba c k to prison. They sta t e d tha t the y shot Se rgio a fte r he ignore d M y e rs’ s c om m ands to show his ha

n ds a nd inste a d
re a c he d for his wa istba

nd a nd pulle d at som e thing the re . B e c a use Se rgio c annot te stify , we “ ‘ m ust c are fully

e xam ine a l l the e v ide nc e in the re c ord . . . to de te rm ine whe the r the [De p utie s’ ] story is inte rna lly

c onsiste n t
and c onsiste nt with other known fa c ts,’ ” inc luding “ ‘ c i rc um sta ntia l e vide nc e tha

t, if be lie ve d, would te nd to disc re dit the . . . story .’ ” C ruz v . C ity of Anahe im , 765 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th C ir. 2014). W e have done so a n d a re satisfie d tha

t no
ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c o uld find in fa v or of the W e ic ks ba se d on the e v ide nc e . 2 Pursua nt to theDe putie s ’ e xpla

nations, the y

we re justifie d in using de a dly forc e in the c irc um sta

nc e s fa c ing the m . 3 Se e id. at 1077–78; se e also Ge orgev . Morris , 736 F.3d 829, 838 (9th C ir. 2013); c f. S.B. v . C

ounty of San Die

go , 864 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th C ir. 2017). M ore ove r, take n in c onte xt, M y e rs’ s sta te m e nt give n shortly

a fte r the shooting tha

t “ [h] e doe s not re m e m

be r shooting” wa s not
m ate ria l ly inc onsiste n t

with there st of tha

t sta te m e nt or with his la

te r sta te m e nts.

2 Sc ott v . Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S. Ct . 1769, 1776, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686 (2007).

3 While the use of forc e by Villa nue va m ay not be a s c l e arly justifie d a s it wa s for the forc e use d by M y e rs, the diffe re nc e doe s not ultimate ly c ha nge our c onc lusion under a ll of the c irc um sta nc e s. 3C

f. C ruz , 765 F.3d a

t 1079–80 (de te rm ining tha t the re wa s e vide nc e tha

t c o uld
re a s ona bly ra ise a doubt re ga

rding c re dibility

of the de putie s). Nor doe s the
e vide nc e indic ate tha

t the De putie s c ontinue d shooting a fte r the thre at from Se rgio pla i nly e nde d. Thus, ne ithe r of the De putie s viola te d Se rgio’ s c o nstitutiona

l rights. (2) To e sta

b lish tha t M y e rs a nd Villa nue va viola te d the i r Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt substa

ntive due p roc e ss right of fa m ilia l a ssoc iat ion, be c a

use Se rgio
wa s e va ding a

rre st, the W e ic k s we re re quire d to prove tha t the De putie s a c te d with
a “ purpose . . . to ha

rm ” Se rgio “ for re a sons unre late d to le gitim ate la w
e nforc e m e nt obje c tive s.” Porte r v . Osborn , 546 F.3d 1131, 1140 (9th C ir. 2008). Sum m ary judgm e nt a ga i nst the W e ic ks wa s prope r be c a use the y hav e not pointe d to a ny e vide nc e tha

t M y e rs or Villa

nue va ha d a ny unre l ate d re a son to ha

rm Se rgio. Se e W ilk inson v . Torre

s , 610 F.3d 546, 554 (9th C ir. 2010). (3) A c ounty

m ay be lia ble unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 if its polic y or c ustom
c a use s the viola

tion of a pe rson’ s c o nstitutiona

l rights. Mone ll v . De

p’t of Soc

. Se rv s. , 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2037–38, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978). Sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the C ounty

of San Die go wa s prope r be c a

use the W e ic ks fa ile d to ra ise a

tria ble issue re ga

rding M y e rs or Villa

nue va ’ s use of forc e . Se e Brav o v . C

ity of Santa Maria , 665 F.3d 1076, 1090–91 (9th C ir. 2011). AFFIRM E D.
4