Hernandez v. Skinner

• Decision Date: 10 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-35514,No. 19-35513,19-35513
• Citation: 969 F.3d 930
• Parties: Miguel Angel REYNAGA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrek SKINNER, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant, and Pedro Hernandez, in his individual capacity, Defendant. Miguel Angel Reynaga Hernandez, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro Hernandez, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant, and Derrek Skinner, in his individual capacity, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

969 F.3d 930

Miguel Angel REYNAGA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Derrek SKINNER, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant,andPedro Hernandez, in his individual capacity, Defendant.

Miguel Angel Reynaga Hernandez, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Pedro Hernandez, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant,andDerrek Skinner, in his individual capacity, Defendant.

No. 19-35513

No. 19-35514

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 2, 2020 Portland, Oregon

Filed August 10, 2020

Levi A. Robison (argued), Melissa A. Williams, and Mark A. English, Deputy Yellowstone County Attorneys, Billings, Montana, for Defendants-Appellants.

Matt Adams (argued), Leila Kang, Aaron Korthuis, and Anne Recinos, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Seattle, Washington; Shahid Haque, Border Crossing Law Firm P.C., Helena, Montana; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before: Roger L. Wollman,^* Ferdinand F. Fernandez, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

In late 2017, a witness in a courtroom in Billings, Montana, testified that one of the other witnesses, Miguel Reynaga Hernandez ("Reynaga"), was "not a legal citizen." On the basis of this statement, the Justice of the Peace presiding over the hearing spoke with the local Sheriff's Office and asked that Reynaga be "picked up."

Deputy Sheriff Derrek Skinner responded to the call. Outside the courtroom, Skinner asked Reynaga for identification and questioned him regarding his immigration status in the United States. Reynaga produced an expired Mexican consular identification card but was unable to provide detailed information regarding his immigration status because he does not speak English fluently. Skinner then placed Reynaga in handcuffs, searched his person, and escorted him to a patrol car outside the courthouse. With Reynaga waiting in the back of the patrol car, Skinner ran a warrants check and, after Reynaga's record came back clean, asked Immigrations and Custom Enforcement ("ICE") if the agency had any interest in Reynaga. Reynaga was ultimately taken to an ICE facility and remained in custody for three months.

Upon his release, Reynaga sued Skinner and Pedro Hernandez, the presiding Justice of the Peace ("Hernandez"), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Fourth Amendment rights. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court denied each defendant qualified immunity and held that Reynaga's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. Skinner and Hernandez interlocutorily appeal the court's denial of qualified immunity. We affirm.

I.

A.

The testimony precipitating Reynaga's arrest occurred during a hearing on a civil order of protection. Jane Reynaga Hernandez ("Jane") had filed a request for a protection order against Rachel Elizondo ("Rachel") in the Yellowstone County Justice Court in Billings, Montana. Jane's husband, plaintiff-appellee Reynaga, accompanied her to the hearing to serve as a witness.

On the morning of the hearing, Hernandez asked Reynaga and another witness to wait outside the courtroom before they testified. Rachel then took the stand. During her testimony, she stated that Reynaga was "not a legal citizen." She made a similar statement about the other witness waiting with Reynaga. She did not testify that either witness had unlawfully entered the United States nor describe their manner of entry.

At the conclusion of Rachel's testimony, Hernandez responded, "What I'm hearing here are allegations about illegal immigrant [sic]." He directed his staff, "call me a deputy. I have two illegals sitting outside. I want them picked up." Once his staff connected him to the Sheriff's Office, Hernandez requested the Office to "send me a couple of deputies. I have two illegal immigrants out in the hallway ... they are in the hall. Get them here as quickly as possible."

After speaking on the phone with the Sheriff's Office, Hernandez denied Jane's request for an order of protection and told both Jane and Rachel that he would hold them in contempt of court and arrest them if they tried to leave the courtroom. He wanted to prevent Jane and Rachel from leaving because he "believed that they might tell [Reynaga and the other witness] that a deputy was on the way to investigate their immigration status and they would flee."

The Sheriff's Office relayed Hernandez's request to Skinner, a deputy sheriff at the time. The Office informed Skinner that Hernandez had called regarding "two illegal immigrants outside his courtroom that he wants picked up." Skinner was dispatched to the courthouse. When he entered the courtroom, Hernandez told him, "the information I have from them two under oath, they are illegal aliens." Skinner replied he would "take care of it." Hernandez then told him, "see what happens. If you guys take them, let me know please," and advised that Skinner "may have to call immigration ... their testimony from the witness stand is they are illegal."

Skinner stepped into the hallway outside the courtroom and asked Reynaga for identification and his immigration status. Reynaga handed Skinner an expired Mexican consulate identification card but—because Reynaga does not speak English fluently—was unable to provide detailed information regarding his immigration status. His identification card from the Mexican consulate does not indicate his immigration status, either in Mexico or in the United States.

Reynaga then tried to enter the courtroom to reach his wife, but Skinner blocked his path and handcuffed him. Skinner searched Reynaga's person and, after failing to find anything, removed Reynaga from the courthouse and placed him into a patrol car outside. While Reynaga sat handcuffed in the patrol car, Skinner ran a warrants check. There were no outstanding warrants for Reynaga. Skinner then asked the Yellowstone County Dispatch if ICE "wanted him." An ICE agent returned Skinner's call and asked Skinner to transport Reynaga to the Yellowstone County Detention Facility.

Reynaga was placed in ICE custody. After three months of being transported between various detention facilities, the Department of Homeland Security dismissed the deportation proceeding it had commenced against Reynaga.

B.

After being released from detention, Reynaga filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court of the District of Montana against Hernandez and Skinner, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights under color of state law. See Hernandez v. Skinner , 383 F. Supp. 3d 1077, 1082 (D. Mont. 2019). He seeks compensatory and punitive damages and a declaratory judgment that the two violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Id.

The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on the section 1983 claims, punitive damages, and request for declaratory relief. Id. The district court concluded that the material facts underlying Reynaga's Fourth Amendment claims and Hernandez's and Skinner's affirmative defense that they were entitled to qualified immunity were undisputed. Id. at 1082–86. The court then proceeded to the merits of those claims, holding that Skinner had violated Reynaga's constitutional rights because he lacked either reasonable suspicion or probable cause that Reynaga was involved in criminal activity, id. at 1083–85, and Hernandez violated Reynaga's Fourth Amendment rights because he was an "integral participant" in Skinner's unlawful actions, id. at 1085–86.

Relying on our caselaw holding that "illegal presence ... does not, without more, provide probable cause of the criminal violation of illegal entry," id. at 1086 (citing Martinez-Medina v. Holder , 673 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011) ), the court held that Reynaga's Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, and denied both Hernandez and Skinner qualified immunity, id. at 1086–87. The court did not address Reynaga's request for punitive damages because it found there were outstanding genuine issues of fact regarding Hernandez's and Skinner's intent. Id. at 1087–88.

Hernandez and Skinner interlocutorily appeal the court's denial of qualified immunity. They argue that the district court erred by holding that Reynaga's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by Hernandez and Skinner, Hernandez was an integral participant in Reynaga's unlawful seizure, and Reynaga's rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged offenses.

II.

We have jurisdiction over Hernandez's and Skinner's appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. An order denying a motion for summary judgment is not typically a "final decision" within the meaning of section 1291, but "that general rule does not apply when the summary judgment motion is based on a claim of qualified immunity." Plumhoff v. Rickard , 572 U.S. 765, 771, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014). "[P]retrial orders denying qualified immunity generally fall within the collateral order doctrine." Id. at 772, 134 S.Ct. 2012.

Jurisdiction in such cases is limited to "questions of law and does not extend to claims in which the determination of qualified immunity depends on disputed issues of material fact." Jeffers v. Gomez , 267 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir. 2001). We review de novo any questions of law underlying the denial of qualified immunity. Wilkins v. City of Oakland , 350 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2003). Where disputed facts do exist, we determine whether the denial of qualified immunity was appropriate by evaluating the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Jeffers , 267 F.3d at 903.

III.

Hernandez and Skinner present a single question on appeal: whether the district court erred in denying them qualified immunity. Reynaga brought his claims under section 1983, which confers a tort remedy upon individuals "whose constitutional rights have been violated by state officials acting ‘under color of’ law." Whalen v. McMullen , 907 F.3d 1139, 1145 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ). Public officials—including police officers and judges—are qualifiedly immune from suit¹ under section 1983 except where...