N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ADALB ER TO FLORES-HAR O; ALM A GR ANADOS-M ILLAN; J. I., a m inor; Y. I., a m inor; T. F., a

m inor; TI. F., a

m inor; DANIEL IB ARR

A, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. STEPHEN SLADE, a

n individual; C ITY OF HILLSB OR O,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts,
and B R IAN M C LEOD, a

n individual; W ASHINGTON C OUNTY,

De fe nda n ts. No. 16-35055 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01616-M O
M EM O R ANDUM *

ADALB ER TO FLORES-HAR O; ALM A GR ANADOS-M ILLAN; J. I., a m inor; Y. I., a m inor; T. F., a

m inor; TI. F., a

m inor; DANIEL IB ARR

A, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, No. 16-35056 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01616-M O



# F IL ED
APR 05 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion 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.v.

STEPHEN SLADE, a

n individual; C ITY OF HILLSB OR O,

De fe nda n ts,
and B R IAN M C LEOD, a

n individual; W ASHINGTON C OUNTY,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. ADALB ER TO FLORES-HAR O; ALM A GR ANADOS-M ILLAN; J. I., a m inor; Y. I., a m inor; T. F., a

m inor; TI. F., a

m inor; DANIEL IB ARR

A, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. B R IAN M C LEOD, a

n individual; W ASHINGTON C OUNTY,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts,
and STEPHEN SLADE, a

n individual; C ITY OF HILLSB OR O,

De fe nda n ts. No. 16-35421 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01616-M O

2Appe a l from the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l W . M osm an, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 6, 2017 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FISHER

and FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s , a nd M AHAN, Distric t Judge
. ** B rian M c Le od, Ste p he n Sla de , W a shington C ounty and the C ity

of Hillsboro (De fe n da nts) bring this inte

rloc utorily

a ppe a l of the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing the m sum m ary judgm e nt on grounds of qua lifie d im m unity , the He c k doc trine and issue pre c lusion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291, 1292(b), a nd we
a ffirm in pa rt, re v e rse in pa

rt a nd re m and. W e re vie w de novo the de nia l of sum m ary judgm e nt, se e K

n ox v . Sw

. Airline s , 124 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th C ir. 1997), a nd we vie w the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa

v ora b le to the non-m oving pa

rty , s e e Garc ia v . C

ty
. of Me rc e d , 639 F.3d 1206, 1208 (9th C ir. 2011). B e c a use the pa rtie s know thefa c ts, we sum m ariz e the m

only brie fly
. Unbe k nownst to Adalbe rto Flore s-Ha ro, la w e nforc e m e nt offic e rs pla nne d to
e xe c ute a se arc h a nd a rre st wa rrant in his ne ighborhood a nd took up positions on
and a round his prope rty . The ta rge t of the wa

rrant re side d ne x t door. De fe nda nt offic e rs shot Flore s-Ha

ro m ultipletim e s a fte r he c onfronte d the sha dowy figure s he

3sa

w c irc ling his home . Flore s-Ha ro wa s a rm e d whe n he wa s shot, but viewing the
e vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora ble to him , he ne ve r pointe d his gun a t the offic e rs or fire d it. B a se d on this e nc ounte r, Flore s-Ha ro ple d no c o n te st in sta

te c ourt to
m e na c ing a

nd re c k le ss e nda

nge rm e nt. The sta

te c ourt a c c e pte d Flore s-Ha ro’ s no
c onte st ple a

a fte r he aring theprose c ution’ s “ fa c tua l ba s is” sta te m e nt, whic h
a sse rte d Flore s-Ha

ro pointe d his gun a

t the offic e rs a

nd fire d it. Se e Or. R e v. Stat. § 135.395 (“Afte r a c c e pting a ple a of guilty or no c onte st, the c ourt sha ll not e nte r
a judgm e nt without making suc h inquiry a s m ay sat isfy the c ourt tha

t the re is a fa c t ua l ba sis for the ple a .” ). The no c onte st ple a did not re quire Flore s-Ha ro to stipula te to the prose c utor’ s proffe re d fa c tua l ba sis. In a se pa ra te c i vil suit in fe de ra l c o urt, Flore s-Ha ro a lle ge d the offic e rs use d
e xc e ssive forc e in viola

tion of his Fourth Am

e ndm e n t rights whe n the y shot him
. Flore s -Haro a lso brought sta te la w c la im s for batte ry , ne glige nc e and inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss. I. W e a gre e with the De fe nda nts tha t the offic e rs a

re e n t itle d to qua lifie d im m unity . In de te rm ining whe t he r qua l ifie d im

m unity a pplie s, “ we c onside r (1) whe the r the re ha s be e n a

viola tion of a c onstitutiona

l right; a nd (2) whe the r that 4right wa s c le arly e sta b lishe d at the tim e of the offic e r’ s a lle g e d m isc o nduc t.” C .V.
v . C ity of Anahe im , 823 F.3d 1252, 1255 (9th C i r. 2016) (quoting Lal v . C alifornia , 746 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th C ir. 2014)). Eve n a ssum ing the offic e rs viola t e d the C onstitution whe

n the y shot Flore sHaro, this c onstitutiona

l viola tion wa s not “ c le arly

e sta blishe d” at

the tim e of the shooting. A c le arly

e sta blishe d right is “ suffic ie ntly c le ar tha t e ve ry re a sona ble offic ia l would ha

ve unde rstood tha

t wha t he is doing viola

te s tha t right.” Mulle nix
v . Luna , 136 S. C t . 305, 308 (2015) (per c uriam ) (quoting Re ic hlev . How ards , 132 S. C t. 2088, 2093 (2012)). Although it is we l l se ttle d tha

t using e xc e ssive forc e viola te s the Fourth Am e n dm e nt, se e Graham v . C o nnor , 490 U.S. 386 (1989); Te nne sse e v . Garne r , 471 U.S. 1 (1985), gene ra l sta te m e nts of the la

w do not by the m se l ve s c re a te c l e arly

e sta blishe d la w outside“ an obvious c a se ,” W hite v . Pauly , 137 S. C t. 548, 552 (2017) (pe r c uriam ) (quoting Brosse au v . Hauge n , 543 U.S. 194, 199 (2004) (per c uriam )). Inste a d, the “ the c le a rly e sta blishe d la w m ust be ‘ p artic ula

riz e d ’ to the fa c ts of the c a se .” W hite , 137 S. C t. at

552 (quoting Ande rson v . C

r e ighton , 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). W e find no pre c e de nt e sta blishing tha

t the offic e rs’ a l le ge d c onduc t unde r the p artic ula

r c irc um sta

n c e s the y c onfronte d wa s unre a sona ble “ be y ond de bate .” C ity & C t y . of San Franc isc o v . She e han , 135 S. C t. 1765, 1774 (2015) (quoting 5Ashc roft v . al-K idd , 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011)). Nor is this a c a se in whic h a
c onstitutiona

l viola t ion is “ obvious.”The De fe nda nts a re thus e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity a s to Flore s-Ha

ro’ s § 1983 c la im

for e xc e ssive forc e . 1 I I. The De fe n da

n t s c onte n d Flore s-Ha

ro’ s sta te la w c la im s a

re ba rre d by issue pre c lusion. W e disa gre e . Unde r Ore gon la

w, issue pre c lusion a

pplie s whe n five e le m e nts a re satisfie d: (1) the issue in the two p roc e e dings m ust be ide ntic a l; (2) the issue m ust have be e n a c tua lly litiga

te d and e sse ntia l to a fina l de c ision on the m e rits in the prior proc e e ding; ( 3 ) the pa rty sought to be pre c lude d m ust have ha d a full and fa i r opportunity to be he ard on the issue ; (4) the p arty sought to be pre c lude d m

ust have be e n a

pa rty or in privity

with a p arty to the prior proc e e ding; and (5) the prior proc e e ding m ust be the ty

pe of proc e e d ing to whic h c ourts will give pre c lusive e ffe c t. State v . Romanov , 149 P.3d 1224, 1227 (Or. C t. App. 2006) (c i ting N e lson v

. Eme rald Pe ople ’s Util. Dist. , 862 P.2d 1293, 1296-97 (Or. 1993)). Eve n a ssum ing no c onte st ple a s c an ha ve pre c lusive e ffe c t, the De fe n da nts’
argum e nt fa ils be c a

use the re quire m e nt tha

t the issue be “ e sse n tia l to a fina l

1 B e c a use Flore s-Ha

ro’ s Se c tion 1983 c la im

is ba rre d by qua lifie d im

m unity , we ne e d not a ddre ss the De fe nda nts’ a lte rna tive argum e nt tha t the c la im

is ba rre d unde r He c k

v . Humphre

y , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). W e a lso de c l ine to e xte nd He c k ’ s re a c h to Ore gon sta

t e la w c la im s in the a

b s e nc e of a

ny indic a tion of the doc trine ’ s a doption by

Ore gon c ourts. C

f

. Yount v
. C

ity of Sac rame nto , 183 P.3d 471, 484 (C a l. 2008) (c onc l uding He c k “ a pplie s e qua lly ” to tort c la im s unde r C a lifornia la w). 6de c ision on the m e rits” is not sa

tisfie d in this c a se . 2 He re , the issue upon whic h the De fe nda nts se e k pre c lusion – tha

t the offic e rs we re pla c e d in im m ine nt fe ar of
se rious phy sic a l injury – wa s not “ e sse ntia l” to the fina l de c ision – the ple a and the
re sulting c onvic tions. Ne i the r m e na c i ng nor re c kle ss e nda nge rm e nt re quire s tha

t the v ic tim be pla c e d in fe ar of se rious phy sic a l injury . M e n a c ing inc l ude s a n atte mpt to pla c e anothe r pe rson in fe ar of im m ine nt se rious phy sic a l injury
. Se e O r. R e v. Stat. § 163.190. Sim ila rly , re c k le ss e nda

nge rm e n t e nc om pa sse s
c onduc t tha

t doe s not a c tua lly

put a nothe r pe rson in da

nge r. Se e State

v . Harbe rt , 963 P.2d 710, 712 (Or. C t. App. 1998) (re c kle s s e n da n g e rm e nt c ove rs “

pote ntial risk s a s we ll a s c a se s whe re a spe c ific pe rson is within the z o ne of da

nge r” (e m pha sis a dde d ) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d)). Thus, Flore s -Haro’ s sta te la w c la im s a

re not pre c lude d be c a

u se the issue whe the r the offic e rs we re pla c e d in im m ine nt fe ar of se rious phy sic a l injury wa s not “ e sse ntia l to a

fina l de c ision.” AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART and RE M ANDE D . Ea c h pa rty sha l l be ar its own c osts on a ppe a l. De fe nda nts’ M otion for C e rtific a tion (Dkt. 55) is D E NIE D AS M O O T
.

2 W e do not re a c h whe the r issue s ra ise d in the fa c tua l ba sis of a no c onte st ple a – or the m a t e ria l e le m e nts of c onvic tions re sulting from tha t ple a – a re “ a c tua lly litiga

te d.” 7