NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LYDIA VASQUEZ-BRENES; RICARDO 

BRENES, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

 v.

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, 

Defendant,

and

SEAN MILLER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-16939

D.C. No.

2:12-cv-01635-JCM-VCF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 19, 2016

Stanford, California

Before: CALLAHAN, HURWITZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except 

as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

NOV 10 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

After Officer Sean Miller of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 

shot and killed Anthony Brenes, Brenes’s wife and father (collectively, “VasquezBrenes”) filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that Miller’s use of deadly force 

violated Brenes’s constitutional rights. The district court denied Miller’s motion 

seeking summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. We reverse.

1. Vasquez-Brenes argues that we lack jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

over this appeal because the district court relied upon material disputed facts in 

denying summary judgment. See Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319–20 (1995). 

But on appeal, Miller argues that even if all contested facts are construed in the light 

most favorable to Vasquez-Brenes, he was nonetheless entitled to qualified 

immunity as a matter of law. The denial of qualified immunity is an appealable final 

decision under § 1291 “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law,” Mitchell v. 

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985), and we therefore have jurisdiction over Miller’s 

appeal.

2. A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct 

violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. 

Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2002). The inquiry into whether a 

right was clearly established “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of 

the case, not as a broad general proposition . . . .” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 

201 (2001). The contours of the right must have been sufficiently clear that any 
3 

reasonable official would have understood that his conduct violated the right; 

“existing precedent must have placed the . . . constitutional question beyond debate.” 

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011).

Vasquez-Brenes argues that Miller’s conduct violated the clearly established 

federal law set forth in Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police, 952 F.2d 321 (9th Cir. 1991). 

But that case involved an officer’s use of deadly force on a fleeing armed suspect. 

Id. at 325. This case involves the use of deadly force on a large man wielding a blunt 

object who continued to advance on Miller after repeated warnings and after being 

tased twice and shot twice with beanbag rounds. Curnow thus is plainly 

distinguishable, and no other case cited by Vasquez-Brenes provides the specific 

guidance required by the Supreme Court. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. Thus, even 

assuming that Miller’s conduct violated Brenes’s constitutional rights, it did not 

violate clearly established law.1

 

1 Nor do the cases cited by the dissent place the “constitutional question beyond 

debate.” See al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741. In A.K.H. v. City of Tustin, an officer fatally 

shot an unarmed suspect as he was removing his hand from his sweatshirt pocket. 

No. 14-55184, 2016 WL 4932330, at *2–3 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2016). In Glenn v. 

Washington County, officers fatally shot an intoxicated man who held a pocketknife 

to his own neck while threatening to commit suicide. 673 F.3d 864, 868–69 (9th 

Cir. 2011). These cases address whether the defendant officer reasonably believed 

deadly force “was necessary to protect himself or others from death or serious bodily 

harm.” See Ting v. United States, 927 F.2d 1504, 1511 (9th Cir. 1991). But we have 

assumed arguendo that Miller’s use of deadly force violated Brenes’s constitutional 

rights. The jury’s resolution of an issue of disputed fact under these circumstances 

is only material if Miller’s conduct violates clearly established law under Brenes’s 

version of events, but not under Miller’s version. Even if we resolve all factual 
4 

3. We reverse and remand with instructions to grant Miller’s motion for 

summary judgment on qualified immunity.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

 

disputes in Brenes’s favor, neither Vasquez-Brenes nor the dissent have cited 

authority showing that Miller’s conduct violated clearly established law.
Vasquez-Brenes v. LVMPD, No. 14-16939

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I fully concur in the memorandum disposition. I write separately only to 

state that I also find that, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Brenes, 

Officer Miller’s conduct did not violate a constitutional right. See Gonzalez v. City 

of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.) (deadly force reasonable if officer has 

probable cause to believe suspect poses significant threat of death or serious 

physical injury), cert. denied sub nom. Wyatt v. F.E.V., 135 S. Ct. 676 (2014).

FILED

NOV 10 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Vasquez-Brenes v. LVMPD, No. 14-16939 

OWENS, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

On the morning of November 15, 2010, Anthony Brenes walked around a

parking lot with a cane and at one point threw a rock. Less than three minutes after

police arrived to ensure public safety, Brenes was dead. Whether bean bag rounds

and taser jolts failed to stop his walking is, in my view, irrelevant. What matters –

and what a jury should decide – is if the officer reasonably believed that deadly

force was needed to save his own life. See, e.g., A.K.H. v. City of Tustin, No. 14-

55184, 2016 WL 4932330, at *5-6 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2016) (affirming denial of

qualified immunity to officer who “escalated to deadly force very quickly” after

the suspect, whose crime did not “involve[] the use of serious or deadly force,”

failed to immediately take his hand out of his pocket); Glenn v. Washington

County, 673 F.3d 864, 866, 873-74, 878 (9th Cir. 2011) (reversing grant of

summary judgment to officers who, within four minutes of their arrival, shot with

bean bag rounds and then fatally shot the suicidal and intoxicated victim, who did

not comply with orders to put down a pocketknife, which he did not brandish at

anyone). There are too many unanswered questions to take this question away

from the jury.

FILED

NOV 10 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS