N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C YNTHIA KENDRIC K, individually and a s suc c e ssor in intere st to e r now de c e a se d husba nd Ga ry Ke ndric k , Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C OUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; W ILLIAM GORE, She riff; DANIEL B A R NES; STEVEN B LOC K ; AM Y B R OW N -LISK; JEREM Y C OLLIS; TR OY DUGAL; DAVE HILLEN; DUSTIN LOPEZ; M ATTHEW

M AYS; KEVIN NOR

IE; JASON W OR THINGTON,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 18-55480

D.C . No. 3:15-c v-02615-GPC -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 Gonz a lo P. C urie l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 16, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED AUG 30 2019 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : SC HR OEDER and R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LEFKOW , * * Distric t Judge
. This is a

n inte rloc utory

a ppe a l of the de nia l of qua lifie d im m unity in a § 1983 a c tion. A Sa

n Die go She riff De puty

fa ta lly shot Ga ry Ke n dric k in front of his wife , C ynthia

Ke n d ric k. De putie s im

m e d iate ly took M rs. Ke ndric k into
c ustody a s a m a te ria l witne ss, holding he r for a l m ost se ve n hours. She ha s a sse rte d
an e x c e ssive forc e c la im

on he r husba

nd’ s be ha lf a

nd a n unre a s ona

ble se i z ure
c la im on he r own be ha l f. The distric t c ourt de nie d de fe nda nts’ m otion for
sum m ary judgm e nt on the m e rits a nd de nie d de fe nda

n ts’ atte m pt to invoke qua lifie d im

m unity . W e a ffirm

the de nia l of qua l ifie d im m unity
. In M arc h 2015, whe n

this inc ide n t

oc c urre d, it wa s c le arly e sta blishe d tha

t the u se of le tha l forc e a ga inst som e one who is a rm e d a nd m e n ta l ly

unsta ble , but not suspe c te d of a

ny c rim ina l wrongdoing, is re a s ona b le only if tha

t individual
m a de a “ furtive m ove m e nt,” “ ha rrowing ge sture ,” or “ se rious ve rba l thre at.” Ge orgev . Morris , 736 F.3d 829, 838 (9th C ir. 2013). C onstruing the fa c t s in pla i ntiff’ s favor, M r. Ke ndric k did no suc h thing. Hewa s shot by De puty Ste ve n B loc k while he wa s sta

nding with his a

rm s outstre tc he d , pa

ra lle l to theground. Our holding in Ge orgec le arly e sta blishe d M r. Ke ndric k’ s Fourth Am e n dm e nt

* * The Honora

ble Joa n H. Le fkow, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion. 2right to befre e from de a d ly forc e in this situa

tion. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt
c orre c tly de nie d qua lifie d im

m unity a s to De puty

B loc k. It wa s a lso c le arly

e sta blishe d tha

t c itiz e ns c annot be de ta ine d for hours on
a c c ount of be ing witne sse s to a c rim e . Se e Max w e ll v . C ounty of San Die

go , 708 F.3d 1075, 1083–84 (9th C i r. 2013). In Max w e l l , we he ld tha t a five -hour de te ntion a

nd inte rrogation of a

fam i ly tha t ha d witne sse d

a shooting pre se n te d a

n

“ obvious”c onstitutiona

l viola tion. Id. W e e xpla ine d tha t the sta te ’ s inte re st in de ta ining witne sse s for que stioning is re lative ly low, a n d so to bec onstitutiona

lly
re a s ona ble suc h de te ntions m

ust be “ m inim a lly intrusive .” Id. at 1083. He re , a fte r wat c hing a

de puty shoot he r husba

nd, C y nthia wa s ta ke n from he r husba nd’ s body , e ffe c tive ly

loc ke d in the ba c k of a

polic e c a r, tra nsporte d to a polic e sta tion, pla c e d in a gua

rde d inte rrogation room

for a lm ost four hours, then subje c te d to two a

nd a ha lf hours of que stioning, a nd a nothe r hour of be ing photogra phe d. As pla intiff a

rgue s, the re we re se ve ra l le ss intrusive wa y s in whic h offic e rs c ould ha

ve que stione d M rs. Ke ndric k a bout theshooting, so this inve stiga tive de te ntion wa s not “ m inim a lly intrusive .” Our de c ision in Max w e ll
c le arly e sta blishe d tha

t M rs. Ke ndric k’ s se iz ure in this situa t ion wa s unre a s ona

ble
. De fe nda nts furthe r c o nte nd tha

t e ve n if M rs. Ke ndric k ’ s de te ntion viola te d a
c le arly e sta blishe d right, these ve n individual de fe nda nts involve d in the de te ntion
3are e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity be c a use the c onduc t of e a c h

de fe n da nt in isola tion did not cross a

c le ar c onstitutiona

l bounda ry . C onstruing the

re c o rd in pla i ntiff’ s favor, a ll se ve n de fe nda nts m u st ha v e be e n on notic e at the tim e of the ir pa rtic i pation tha

t the de te n tion wa s not m inim a l ly intrusiveand tha

t the ir involve m e nt in it there fore viola te d princ i ple s tha

t we c le arly

e sta blishe d in Max w e ll
. W e re c e ntly

re a c he d a

sim ila r c o nc lusion. Se e N

ic h olson v

. C

ity of Los Ange le s , No. 17-56648, 2019 W L 3939352, a

t *4–*5 (9th C ir. Aug. 21, 2019) (a ffirm ing de nia l of qua l ifie d im m unity whe re offic e r wa s “ j ust one pa

rtic ipa nt in a
se que n c e of e ve nts tha

t give s rise to a

c onstitutiona

l viola tion.” )

. It is for thejury to disc e rn whe the r e a c h of the se ve n de fe nda n ts’ pa rtic ipation in this unla

wfully prolonge d de t e ntion wa s “ inte g ra l.” Se e Blank e n horn v . C

ity of Orange , 485 F.3d 463, 481 n.12 (9th C ir. 2007) (e xpla ining lia bility m ay

atta c h if the offic e r ha s

“ som e funda

m e nta l involve m e nt in thec onduc t tha t a lle ge dly c a

use d the viola tion.” ). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d qua lifie d im

m unity a s to the se ve n de fe nda

nts involve d in M rs. Ke ndric k’ s de te ntion. AFFIRM E D.

4