Vellenoweth v. City of Napa

Background

Jeremy James Vellenoweth was 26 years old and lived with his parents, Gary and Terri Vellenoweth. On October 6, 2021, Jeremy was outside his home, drinking and holding a shotgun. The opinion states that he refused his parents’ requests to put the gun away and pointed it at Gary. Gary called 911 and reported that Jeremy was intoxicated, armed, and wanted to commit “suicide by cop.” A neighbor also called 911 to report that Jeremy had pointed the shotgun at Gary.

Officer Dominic Deguilio responded to reports that an intoxicated person was armed, had pointed a weapon at his father, and was trying to commit suicide by police officer. Deguilio also heard a radio report that a shot had been fired, although officers did not initially know where the shot came from or whether anyone had been injured.

The parties disputed what happened immediately before Deguilio fired. Deguilio testified that Jeremy emerged from the side of the house with the shotgun in a ready position, moved it in a sweeping motion toward Deguilio and Gary, and appeared to be trying to aim at someone. Deguilio ordered Jeremy to put the gun down and fired within moments. Plaintiffs argued that Jeremy did not know officers were present, that the video showed him merely holding or lowering the shotgun, and that he lowered it after Deguilio’s order. Jeremy was taken to a hospital and died 20 days later.

Gary and Terri sued Deguilio and the City of Napa. Their claims included a Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a Fourteenth Amendment claim concerning their family relationship under § 1983, and California claims for wrongful death, bystander liability or negligent infliction of emotional distress, and survivorship based on negligence.

Summary-judgment standard

The court explained that summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A material fact is one that could affect the outcome, and a genuine dispute exists when the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to rule for the nonmoving party. The court must view the evidence in the nonmoving party’s favor and may not resolve credibility disputes or weigh conflicting evidence at this stage.

Fourth Amendment claim

The court analyzed the shooting under the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force. That standard considers the totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the conduct, whether the person posed an immediate threat, and whether the person was resisting or fleeing. The court identified the immediate-threat question as the most important issue here.

The court found materially conflicting evidence about whether Jeremy posed an immediate threat when Deguilio fired. Defendants’ evidence supported Deguilio’s account that Jeremy held the shotgun in a firing position, moved it toward Deguilio and Gary, and appeared to be trying to acquire a target. Plaintiffs’ evidence, including video footage, supported a different account: that Jeremy was lowering the weapon and was not aiming it at another person when Deguilio shot.

Because reasonable people could disagree about Jeremy’s actions, including the direction of the shotgun and whether he was lowering it in response to the officers’ command, the court could not decide as a matter of law that Jeremy posed an immediate threat. The court therefore denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the Fourth Amendment cause of action.

Fourteenth Amendment family-relationship claim

The court recognized that parents can have a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of their child. Because the encounter escalated quickly and required a snap judgment, however, the applicable test required plaintiffs to show that Deguilio acted with a purpose to harm Jeremy for reasons unrelated to legitimate law-enforcement objectives.

Plaintiffs argued that Deguilio’s departures from Napa Police Department policies supported their claim. The court concluded that the cited conduct and policy violations did not meet the demanding purpose-to-harm standard. The court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that Deguilio used excessive force after the first shot because plaintiffs cited no law or record evidence showing that Jeremy became harmless after that shot.

The court therefore granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the Fourteenth Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity can protect government officials from civil damages unless the plaintiff shows both a constitutional violation and violation of a right that was clearly established at the time.

For the Fourth Amendment claim, the court found that the factual disputes about the immediacy of the threat prevented a qualified-immunity decision before trial. The court therefore denied qualified immunity for the Fourth Amendment claim.

For the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court concluded that plaintiffs had not shown a constitutional violation under the purpose-to-harm standard. The court therefore denied qualified immunity as moot for the Fourteenth Amendment claim.

California claims

Plaintiffs asserted negligence-based California claims for wrongful death, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and survivorship. Defendants argued that Deguilio owed no legal duty because his conduct was objectively reasonable. Because the same factual dispute about whether Jeremy posed an immediate threat prevented the court from finding Deguilio’s conduct objectively reasonable as a matter of law, the court denied summary judgment as to the state-law causes of action.

Defendants also argued that statutory immunities protected them from the state-law claims. The court found that defendants provided only conclusory statements and no analysis showing that the immunities applied. It therefore denied summary judgment on the state-law claims on the basis of state-law immunities.

Other ruling and overall disposition

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to accept their filed amended opposition to the motion for summary judgment as unopposed. The order concludes by granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The supplied opinion text does not show a separate disposition of plaintiffs’ motion to strike.