Murrietta-Golding v. City of Fresno

ISIAH MURRIETTA-GOLDING deceasedthrough his successor in interest Christina Lopez, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF FRESNO, CITY OF FRESNO POLICY CHIEF JERRY DYER,FRESNO POLICE SGT. RAY VILLALVAZO, and Does 1-10, Defendants

CASE NO. 1:18-CV-0314 AWI SKO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

December 31, 2020

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION STAY AND PLAINTFFS' MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF APPEAL AS FRIVOLOUS

(Doc. Nos. 86, 87)

This case arises from a fatal encounter between decedent Isiah Murrietta-Golding ("Murrietta-Golding") and City of Fresno police officer Ray Villalvazo ("Villalvazo"). Plaintiffs Christina Lopez and Anthony Golding, both individually and purporting to be successors in interest to Murrietta-Golding, bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and state law claims for California Civil Code § 52.1 ("Bane Act"), negligence, and assault and battery. On October 15, 2020, the Court denied Villalvazo's motion for summary judgment, which included a denial of qualified immunity. On October 20, 2020, Villalvazo appealed the denial of qualified immunity to the Ninth Circuit. On November 12, 2020, after unsuccessful negotiations, the parties filed two related motions. Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify Villalvazo's appeal as frivolous (Doc. No. 87), and Villalvazo filed a motion to stay the case (Doc. No. 86). All briefing on these motions have been received. After review, the Court will grant Plaintiffs' motion and deny Villalvazo's motion.

Plaintiffs' Arguments

Plaintiffs argue that it is true that a legitimate appeal divests the court of jurisdiction over aspects of the case involved in the appeal. However, the state law claims in this case are separate from the federal claims being appealed, so the appeal does not divest the Court of jurisdiction to resolve those claims. Moreover, when a court certifies that an appeal is frivolous, the court may proceed to trial on the claims that are the subject of the appeal. Plaintiffs argue that Villalvazo's appeal is frivolous because qualified immunity was denied based on factual disputes. The Court's summary judgment order noted that the daycare videotape could be interpreted in more than one way, but ultimately interpreted the video in Plaintiffs' favor by holding that it depicted Murriatta-Golding as doing nothing more than trying to escape while keeping his baggy pants from falling down. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that the appeal is frivolous because, accepting Plaintiffs' version of events, the law was clearly established that officers cannot use lethal force against a suspect like Murrietta-Golding who posed no danger to officers or others. Therefore, Plaintiffs contend that the Court should certify Villalvazo's appeal as frivolous and let the entirety of this case proceed.

Defendant's Argument

Defendants argue that, pursuant to Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104 (9th Cir. 1992), the interlocutory appeal has divested the Court of jurisdiction while the appeal is pending. Chuman's exception depends on the district court certifying that the appeal is frivolous. However, there has been no such finding. Defendants argue that they have consistently maintained that the facts are uncontroverted because they were captured on video, and to the extent that a dispute exists, have accepted Plaintiffs' version for purposes of summary judgment. Therefore, the Chuman stay divests the Court of all jurisdiction.

Alternatively, Defendants argue that a discretionary stay under Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) should be imposed. Plaintiffs' desire to proceed with additional discovery on the state law claims and trial flies in the face of judicial economy. If Plaintiffs are allowed to proceed to trial on their state law claims, but are ultimately successful on appeal, this will result in two trials arising out of the same nucleus of facts - one on state law claims and one on federalclaims. If Defendants are successful on appeal, then the Court will have undertaken a needless trial on state supplemental claims that would have been better adjudicated in state court. Judicial economy weighs in favor of a single trial on the merits and thus, favors a Landis stay.

Legal Standard

A defendant who is denied qualified immunity before trial may file an immediate interlocutory appeal where the denial turns on an issue of law. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985); Sharp v. County of Orange, 871 F.3d 901, 909 n.6 (9th Cir. 2017); Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104 (9th Cir. 1992). "The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance - it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982); see Rodriguez v. County of L.A., 891 F.3d 776, 790 (9th Cir. 2018); Chuman, 960 F.2d at 105. However, there is an exception to the divestiture rule in qualified immunity cases. See Rodriguez, 891 F.3d at 790-91; Chuman, 960 F.2d at 105. If the district court certifies in writing that the defendant's appeal of qualified immunity is frivolous or has been waived, the district court is no longer divested of jurisdiction and the case may proceed in the district court. See Rodriguez, 891 F.3d at 790-91; Chuman, 960 F.2d at 105. In the absence of such a certification (sometimes called "Chuman certification"), the district court remains automatically divested of its authority to proceed with trial pending appeal. See Rodriguez, 891 F.3d at 791; Chuman, 960 F.2d at 105. A qualified immunity appeal may be "frivolous" if the denial of qualified immunity was based on the presence of a genuine issue of fact for trial. See Rodriguez, 891 F.3d at 791; George v. Morris, 736 F.3d 829, 834 (9th Cir. 2013); Estate of Farmer v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99110, *8-*9 (D. Nev. June 13, 2019). An appeal may also be "frivolous" if the results are obvious. United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1003 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002); Estate of Farmer, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99110 at *8-*9. A district court's certification that an interlocutory appeal is frivolous is not an appealable order. Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1017 (9th Cir. 1997). Nevertheless, a defendant who disagrees with the district court's certification may apply to the Ninth Circuit for a discretionary stay. Id.; Chuman, 960 F.2d at 105 n.1.

Discussion¹

There is no dispute that, pursuant to Chuman and Rodriguez, this Court has been divested of jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims. There are disputes about whether Villalvazo's appeal is frivolous and about the appropriateness of a discretionary Landis stay.

1. Frivolous Appeal

In denying Villalvazo's motion for summary judgment, the Court relied heavily on the videotape from the daycare. See Murrietta-Golding v. City of Fresno, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192487, *24-*31 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2020). The video showed Murrietta-Golding fleeing and Villalvazo firing his weapon. See id. at *13-*15. The Court explained that there were at least two possible interpretations of the videotape, one in which Villalvazo reacted to a reasonably perceived immediate threat, the other in which Murrietta-Golding was merely running while trying to keep his baggy pants from falling down and thus, posing no threat. See id. at *24-*28. Because the Court was required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Court concluded that the evidence showed that Murrietta-Golding posed no threat to Villalvazo. See id. at *31. This finding was key to resolving the summary judgment motion. The nature of the threat posed by a suspect to officers or others is the most important consideration in evaluating excessive force cases. See Nehad v. Browder, 929 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir. 2019). The summary judgment determination that Murrietta-Golding posed no threat to Villalvazo or others when lethal forced was used was what tipped the balance in Plaintiffs' favor and resulted in the denial of summary judgment and qualified immunity. See Murrietta-Golding, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192847 at *38, *41-*42. The summary judgment recognized that the Ninth Circuit has explained that "few things in our case law are as clearly established as the principle that an officer may not 'seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead' in the absence of probable cause to believe that the [fleeing] suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to officers or others." Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1128 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 10-12 (1985)). Additionally, the summary judgment order concluded that Villalvazo'sversion of events was essentially based on a mistake of fact, i.e. that Murrietta-Golding was drawing a weapon when he was actually only trying to hold up his pants. See Murrietta-Golding, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at 192847 at *31. Whether a mistaken belief was reasonable is a question of fact. See Nehad, 929 F.3d at 1133-34.

From the above, it is apparent that questions of fact precluded the Court from either granting qualified immunity or holding that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred. The questions of fact turn on interpretation of the videotape and the credibility of Villalvazo. As the order explained, the videotape can be viewed in at least two ways, one supportive of Villalvazo and one supportive of Plaintiffs. Because multiple inferences are possible, it is a question for the trier of fact to determine what exactly the video depicts and whether Villalvazo reasonably perceived that Murrietta-Golding posed an immediate threat of harm to himself or to others. See id.; see also Vos v. City of Newport Beach, 892 F.3d 1024, 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2018); Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that when the...