Sanchez v. Guzman

105 F.4th 1285

Marta SANCHEZ; the Estate of Stephanie Lopez;Dominic Martinez, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Anthony GUZMAN, individually; Luke McGrath, individually;Joseph Carns, individually; Brian Martinez, individually, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 22-1322

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

FILED June 28, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 1:19-CV-01871-RMR-MEH)

Robert E. Barnes, Barnes Law, Los Angeles, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Jonathan N. Eddy, SGR, LLC, Denver, Colorado (Eric M. Ziporin, SGR, LLC, Denver, Colorado, and Josh A. Marks and David J. Goldfarb, Berg Hill Greenleaf Ruscitti LLP, Boulder, Colorado, with him on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.

Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.

HOLMES, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs Marta Sanchez, the Estate of Stephanie Lopez, and Dominic Martinez brought a § 1983 excessive-force action against Littleton, Colorado Police Department Officers Anthony Guzman, Luke McGrath, and Joseph Carns, as well as Englewood Police Department Officer Brian Martinez (collectively, "Defendants"). The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the basis that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I

The parties' arguments reveal starkly different pictures of the factual circumstances that form the basis of this action.

On one hand, Plaintiffs describe an incident in which Defendants fired sixty-six bullets into Plaintiffs' motionless vehicle while they were attempting to surrender and presenting no observable threat—actions that killed Stephanie Lopez, rendered Marta Sanchez a paraplegic, and severely injured Dominic Martinez.

On the other hand, Defendants describe a multifaceted police pursuit and shooting whereby Plaintiffs—after fleeing the scene of an armed carjacking in a stolen vehicle—led police on a high-speed car chase, fleeing after each of Defendants' three attempts to stop Plaintiffs' vehicle. And, according to Defendants, Plaintiffs used their vehicle as a weapon against Defendants and, more generally, endangered the public through their use of the vehicle.

Though we acknowledge the different perspectives of the parties, in our review of the district court's qualified-immunity summary-judgment order, we are obliged to accept Plaintiffs' version of the facts; yet, critically, that is true only insofar as that version is supported by record evidence. See, e.g., Thomson v. Salt Lake Cnty., 584 F.3d 1304, 1312 (10th Cir. 2009) ("[B]ecause at summary judgment we are beyond the pleading phase of the litigation, a plaintiff's version of the facts must find support in the record . . . ."). Ordinarily, the plaintiff's version of the facts provides the foundation for our qualified-immunity legal analysis. See, e.g., Palacios v. Fortuna, 61 F.4th 1248, 1256 (10th Cir. 2023) (noting that, in the qualified-immunity summary-judgment context, construing the facts in the plaintiff's favor "generally means adopting the plaintiff's version of the facts"). Considering the plaintiff's record-based facts, ordinarily we would determine whether the plaintiff has satisfied its burden of proof—and thus defeated the defendant's qualified-immunity defense—by showing (1) that the defendant violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights and (2) that the violation contravened clearly established law. See, e.g., A.M. v. Holmes, 830 F.3d 1123, 1136 (10th Cir. 2016) (noting that we look to the plaintiff's version of the facts "in determining whether the plaintiff has satisfied the necessary two-pronged qualified-immunity showing").

However, under the unique circumstances of this case, we are unable to make that qualified-immunity determination because Plaintiffs have failed to identify the record evidence that supports the version of the facts that they have pleaded and argued in their briefing. In other words, Plaintiffs have failed to supply the factual foundation for our qualified-immunity legal analysis. As a necessary consequence, Plaintiffs have effectively waived our review of their challenge to the district court's grant of qualified immunity to Defendants. More specifically, this is so because Plaintiffs' failure to define the operative factual universe—with citations to supportive record evidence—prevents us from assessing whether Plaintiffs have carried their two-part qualified-immunity burden. In particular, absent Plaintiffs identifying for us a record-based factual universe reflecting their version of events, we cannot opine on whether the district court committed reversible error in concluding that Plaintiffs did not satisfy the clearly established law prong of the qualified-immunity test.

The assessment of whether a plaintiff has satisfied that prong—as well as the first prong of the qualified-immunity test (constitutional violation vel non)—turns on the nature of the record-based factual universe that a plaintiff has defined. But here Plaintiffs have failed to define such a universe. Therefore, they have effectively waived our review of their qualified-immunity challenge. Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we are constrained on this basis to uphold the district court's judgment.

II

On February 4, 2022, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court referred the motions to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motions for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. See Aplts.' App. at 47 (Mag. Judge's R. & R. on Defs.' Mots. for Summ. J., filed July 29, 2022) ("Recommendation"). Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden on the clearly established law issue, and recommended that the district court grant Defendants' motions for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Plaintiffs filed objections to the magistrate judge's Recommendation. In large part, Plaintiffs' objections related to the magistrate judge's treatment of the facts. They argued that the Recommendation "ignored or marginalized" Plaintiffs' version of the facts—including their sworn testimony—thus not taking the facts, as the judge should, in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Id. at 80 (Pls.' Objs. to Mag. Judge's R. & R. on Defs.' Mots. for Summ. J., filed Aug. 12, 2022). Specifically, Plaintiffs said that "the Recommendation's analysis regarding the second prong of qualified immunity is undermined by improper deference to the Defendants' proposed facts, while disregarding contradictory video evidence, weighing the Plaintiffs' credibility against them, and disregarding the defendants' sworn testimony when it conflicts with the Magistrate's opinion of the video evidence." Id. at 88. They said that the judge's approach was erroneous because the "question of qualified immunity demands clearly reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs' favor. Instead, the Recommendation systematically eliminated all disputes of material fact, finding each in favor of the Defendants without any inferences provided to the Plaintiffs, and concluded that no analysis of the constitutional rights at issue was necessary." Id. (citation omitted).

The district court nevertheless issued an order adopting the magistrate judge's Recommendation. Significantly, despite Plaintiffs' vigorous objections, the district court fully adopted the Recommendation's factual statement. In anticipation of tackling the legal questions that Plaintiffs raised, the district court offered a summary of the magistrate judge's factual findings. It bears repeating here:

On the evening of June 29, 2017, Defendant Officers Anthony Guzman, Joseph Allen Carns, and Luke McGrath were on duty with the Littleton Police Department. Just before midnight, they received a dispatch report that a white Chevy Malibu had been carjacked by four individuals. One of the suspects was armed and had fired a shot near the victim's head, according to the dispatch report. This constituted felony auto theft in violation of Colorado Revised Statute § 18-4-409. The officers responded to the report in full police uniform, each driving a fully marked police SUV. They observed the suspect Malibu driving northbound on Santa Fe Drive. There were three suspects in the vehicle at that time: Plaintiffs Marta Sanchez and Dominic Martinez, as well as decedent Stephanie Lopez, whose Estate proceeds as the third Plaintiff in this action. The officers began to follow the Malibu with lights and sirens activated, but the suspects did not yield.

Plaintiff Martinez estimated that the Malibu was driving "at least" seventy-five miles per hour. The suspects ran red lights at Oxford Avenue and Dartmouth Avenue and began to weave between lanes. Officer Carns observed the suspects narrowly avoid colliding with a motorcycle, but Plaintiff Sanchez testified that she did not recall almost hitting a motorcycle. Officer Carns requested and was authorized to perform a Pursuit Intervention Technique ("PIT") maneuver once speeds decreased, in order to stop the Malibu. Eventually, the Malibu appeared to skid and decelerate, and at that time, Officer Carns performed the authorized PIT maneuver. The Malibu spun roughly 170 degrees and came to rest. This was the first of three "stops" that took place during this pursuit, all of which were captured on video that has been submitted to the Court. Officer Brian Martinez of the Englewood Police Department joined the other Defendant officers at the third stop, in response to their dispatch call for assistance.

In total, the pursuit of the suspects in the Malibu covered more than six miles and spanned three jurisdictions, including Littleton, Englewood, and Denver. Plaintiff Sanchez, who was the driver, was shot multiple times. Plaintiff Lopez, who was in the front passenger seat, was fatally shot. Plaintiff Martinez,

...