N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAVIER TOR R ES; LIA R IVADENEYR

A, individually

and on be ha lf of a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d , Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. TER R Y GODDAR

D, in his individua

l c a pa c i ty ; C AM ER ON H. HOLM ES, AKA Kip Holm e s , in his individua l c a pa c ity ; THOM AS C . HOR

NE, Attorne y

Ge n e ra l, Attorne y Ge ne ra l of the State of Ariz ona , De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-16315 D.C . No. 2:06-c v-02482-SM M
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ste phe n M
. M c Nam e e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 27, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED JUN 25 2018 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 : B YB EE, NGUYEN, ** and OW ENS, *** C irc uit Judge s .

Nam e d pla intiffs Ja

vie r Torre s a

nd Lia R iva de ne yra

brought this puta

tive
c la ss a c tion unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a ga inst theAttorne y Ge ne ra l an d Assista

nt Attorne y Ge ne ra l of the State of Ariz ona . The y a lle ge that two wa rrants issue d by the M aric opa

C ounty Supe rior C ourt a ga inst pla intiffs’ m one y orde rs with W e ste rn Union Fina

nc ia l Se rvic e s (“ W e ste rn Union” ) viola te d the ir Fourth a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt rights. The

distric t c ourt de nie d c la ss c e rtific ation a nd gra nte d de fe nda n ts’ m o t ion for sum

m ary judgm e nt, holding tha

t de fe nda nts we re e ntitle d to a b solute im

m unity for the i r a c tions. On a

ppe a l we he l d tha

t a lthough de fe nda

nts
we re a bsolute ly im m une for the pre pa

ra tion a n d a pplic ation of thewa

rrants, the y c ould not c la im

the sa m e a bsolute im

m unity a s to the ir e xe c ution a

nd se rvic e , a

nd
so we a ffirm e d in pa

rt a n d re ve rse d in pa

rt for furthe r proc e e d ings on the que stion of qua lifie d im

m unity
. Torre

s v . Goddard

, 793 F.3d 1046, 1053–59 (9th C ir. 2015). On re m and, the c ourt a g a in de nie d c la ss c e rtific at ion, a nd gra nte d

** This c a se wa s subm itte d to a pa ne l tha t inc lude d Judge Koz inski. Following Judge

Koz inski’ s re tire m e nt, JudgeNguy e n wa s dra wn by lot to repla c e him . Ninth C irc u it Ge n e ra l Orde r 3.2h. JudgeNguy e n ha s re vie w e d a ll c a se m a te ria l s.

*** This c a se wa s subm itte d to a pa n e l tha t inc lude d Judge R e inha

rdt. Following Judge

R e inha rdt’ s pa ssing, Judge

Owe ns wa s dra

wn by lot to repla c e him . Ninth C irc u it Ge n e ra l Orde r 3.2h. JudgeOwe ns ha s re vie we d a l l c a se m a te ria l s. 2de fe nda

n ts’ m o t ion for sum

m ary judgm e nt, holding tha

t qua lifie d

im m unity prote c te d de fe nda nts a ga inst the se c la im s. The c ourt re a sone d tha t the re wa s no viola tion in tha

t de fe nda nts “ a c te d re a s ona

b ly in se rvic e an d e xe c ution . . . be lie ving tha

t the warrants we re supporte d by proba ble c a use ,” and tha

t e v e n if a viola tion ha d be e n c om

m itte d, no c le arly e sta

blishe d la w ga v e the m fa i r notic e of lia bility . Torre s a

n d R iva de ne y

ra a ppe a l. W e have a

ppe lla te jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo whe the r qua lifie d im

m unity prote c ts gove rnm e nt offic e rs from lia bility
. Prison Le gal N e w s v . Le hman , 397 F.3d 692, 698 (9th C ir. 2005). W e re vie w the de nia l of c la ss c e rtific a tion for a n a buse of disc re tion. Bate man v . Am. Multi-C ine ma, Inc
. , 623 F.3d 708, 712 (9th C ir. 2010). W e pre sum e the pa

rtie s’ fam ilia

rity with thefa c ts of this c a se a s se t forth in our publishe d opinion, se e Torre s , 793 F.3d a

t 1048–50, a

nd a s se t forth in the distric t c o urt’ s orde r. Afte r c onside ra tion of thebrie fs, re c ord, a nd a rgum e nt, we
a ffirm
. 1. Torre s a

n d R iva d e ne yra

first a rgue tha t de fe nda nts a re not e ntitle d to qua lifie d im

m unity for the e xe c ution a

nd se rvic e of the wa

rrants, be c a

use the
warran ts we re insuffic ie n t ly pa rtic ula riz e d . The y

argue tha t the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l’ s use and issua

nc e of “ c rite ria -ba se d” warrants viola te s the re quire m e n t of
3pa

rtic u la riz e d proba ble c a use , se e Ybarra v . Illinois , 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979), a nd the p rohibition on using profile e vide nc e a s proba

ble c a use , se e Unite d State

s v . $49,576.00 U.S. C

urre nc y , 116 F.3d 425, 427–28 (9th C ir. 1997), a nd tha t both propositions we

re c le a rly e sta blishe d. Eve n a ssum ing pla intiffs’ Fourth Am e ndm e nt rights we re viola te d , suc h a viola tion wa s not c l e arly

e sta blishe d at the tim e . This se c ond prong of the qua lifie d im

m unity ana ly s is re quire s us to e xam i ne the “ c ontours” of the pla intiffs’ Fourth Am e ndm e n t

rights to de te rm ine whe the r those pa rtic ula r rights we re

“ c l e arly e sta b lishe d,” Hopev . Pe lze r , 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002), a nd a sk whe the r a

“ re a sona ble offic ia l” would ha

ve known tha

t “ what he [wa s ] doing viola te [d] tha t right.” Ande rson v . C

re ighton , 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). Pla intiffs c arry the burde n of showing tha

t the la w wa s c le arly e sta

blishe d at the tim e of the a lle ge d viola tion, se eDav is v . Sc he r e r , 468 U.S. 183, 197 (1984), a n d we de fine “ c le arly
e sta blishe d la w” not a t a high le ve l of ge n e ra lity , but with a fa ir de gre e of gran ula rity , M ulle nix v . Luna , 136 S. C t. 305, 308 (2015) (c ita tion omitte d). W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt’ s a na ly sis, a nd we find tha

t the c a se s c ite d by pla intiffs would not ha

v e provide d de fe nda

nts with notic e in 2006 tha t the ir
c onduc t c onstitute d a

n unc onstitutiona

l se iz ure in viola

tion of pla intiffs’ Fourth Am e ndm e nt rights. The

c a se s the y

c ite are sim

ply too ge ne ra l to ha

ve done so. 4Se e , e .g. , Ybarra , 444 U.S. a t 90 & n.2 (wa

rrant tha t broa dly dire c te d the polic e to
se arc h “ the following person or pla c e : . . . theAurora Ta p Ta ve rn. . . . [a ] l so the pe rson of ‘ G re g ’ ” wa s not supporte d by proba ble c a use ); $49,576.00 , 116 F.3d a t 427–28 (a ffidavit by arre sting offic e r noting m e re ly tha t “ a p pe lla nt fits a drug
c ourie r profile ” wa s insuffic ie nt for proba ble c a use ). “ [P] roba

ble c a use re quire s only a proba b ility or substa

ntia l c ha nc e of c rim ina l a c tivity , not a n a c tua l showing of suc h a c tivity ,” and “ innoc e nt be havior fre que ntly will provide

the ba sis for [it]
. ” Illinois v . Gate

s , 462 U.S. 213, 243 n.13 (1983). Although “ p rofile ” e v ide nc e tha

t

“ de sc ribe [s] a

ve ry la rge c a te gory

of pre sum a

bly innoc e nt [pe rsons] ” doe s not
a lone e sta blish proba

b l e c a use , Re id v . Ge orgia , 448 U.S. 438, 441 (1980) (pe r c uriam ), the progra

m at issue he re ide ntifie d

tra nsfe rs with a

n e xtre m e ly

high sta tistic a l like lihood of a

c rim ina l ne xus. W

he the r or not the wa

rrants we re prope rly issue d , we a g re e with thedistric t c o urt tha t de fe nda nts a re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im

m unity a s to the ir se rvic e and e xe c ution. 2. Torre s a

n d R iva d e ne yra

argue tha t the distric t c ourt ignore d our
re m and of the ir Due Proc e ss a nd C om m e rc e C la

use c la im s, a

nd tha t the distric t
c ourt e rre d in re fusing to c e rtify the ir c la ss c la i m s. As to the form e r argum e nt,
e ve n if thosec l a im s survive d our re m and, the y are none the le ss m e ritle ss be c a use the c la i m e d viola

tions of the D u e Proc e s s a nd C om m e rc e C la

use s a re e v e n le ss 5“ c l e arly

e sta b lishe d” tha

n the c la im e d viola

tions of the Fourth Am e ndm e nt for whic h de fe nda

n ts a re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity . As to thelatte r argum e nt,

“ the distric t

c ourt ne e d not inquire

a s to whe t

he r [a ] m e ritle ss c l a im

should form the b a sis of a

c la ss a c tion.” C

orbin v . TimeW

arne r Entm’t-Advanc e

/N e w house P’ship , 821 F.3d 1069, 1085 (9th C ir. 2016). The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is A FFIRM E D
.

6