Gonzalez v. City of Alameda

Background

The case arises from Mario Gonzalez’s death in April 2021 after his detention by Eric McKinley, James Fisher, and Cameron Leahy, identified in the opinion as City of Alameda police officers. M.G.C. sued individually and as Gonzalez’s successor-in-interest, asserting constitutional and related state-law claims against the officers and the City of Alameda.

In an earlier summary-judgment order, the court granted defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part. The court granted summary judgment on M.G.C.’s Fourteenth Amendment claim and individual claim under the Bane Act. It denied the rest of defendants’ motion, including their claim that qualified immunity protected them from the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim. Qualified immunity is a legal protection that can prevent an official from being subjected to trial when the law was not clearly established.

Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of qualified immunity. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal taken before the entire case is finished. The plaintiffs asked the court to certify that appeal as frivolous, which would allow the case to proceed despite the appeal. Defendants opposed the request.

Legal Standard

A defendant may appeal a denial of qualified immunity when the denial turns on a legal issue. Ordinarily, such an appeal removes the district court’s authority to proceed with the trial on the issues involved in the appeal. The Ninth Circuit permits a district court to proceed when it certifies that the appeal is frivolous or forfeited. The court explained that a frivolous appeal is unfounded or so baseless that it does not invoke appellate jurisdiction. Because this power must be used cautiously, the court stated that believing an appeal is unlikely to succeed is not enough.

Discussion

The plaintiffs initially argued that the appeal improperly challenged factual disputes, that the officers’ conduct plainly violated clearly established law, and that there was no legal basis to appeal the denial of summary judgment on the state-law claims. Defendants clarified that their appeal challenged only whether, viewing the evidence favorably to the plaintiffs, the officers violated clearly established law.

The court had previously concluded that clearly established law prohibited prolonged pressure on a person who was lying face down and handcuffed when that force was unreasonable under the circumstances. It relied on Ninth Circuit precedent involving officers who placed body weight on a handcuffed person lying on his stomach. In this case, the court had determined that a jury could find that Gonzalez was not suspected of a violent crime, did not pose an immediate threat, and was held face down for more than five minutes, including three minutes and 45 seconds after he was handcuffed.

The court continued to stand by its denial of qualified immunity but found that the appeal was not frivolous. It identified factual differences between this case and the earlier precedent, including that the person in the earlier case had a known history of mental illness, repeatedly said he could not breathe, and was later placed in an ankle restraint. The court also noted that Gonzalez did not verbally communicate that he could not breathe and that a Ninth Circuit judge had viewed the absence of such a statement as a potentially important factual difference in another case. These differences meant the Ninth Circuit could disagree with the district court’s qualified-immunity analysis.

Stay of the Case

The court then considered defendants’ request to stay the remaining claims while the appeal was pending. Although the plaintiffs argued that defendants had not filed a formal motion to stay, the court treated defendants’ opposition brief as clearly requesting a stay of the entire action. The court concluded that allowing some claims to proceed could create inefficiency and confusion, including the possibility of a second trial. It therefore exercised its discretion to stay the entire action pending the appeal.

Ruling

Judge Donna M. Ryu denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify defendants’ interlocutory appeal as frivolous. The court stayed the entire case pending appellate review of defendants’ appeal. The opinion does not decide whether the appeal will succeed.