Hill v. City of Fountain Valley
| Docket Number | 21-55867 |
| Decision Date | 01 June 2023 |
| Parties | Stephen Douglas HILL; Teresa Ann Hill; Benjamin Hill, as guardian ad litem for his minor children C.H. and A.H.; Brett Michael Hill, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY; Stuart R. Chase; Gannon P. Kelly; James Cataline, Defendants-Appellees, and Does, 1-10, inclusive, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
70 F.4th 507
Stephen Douglas HILL; Teresa Ann Hill; Benjamin Hill, as guardian ad litem
for his minor children C.H. and A.H.; Brett Michael Hill, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY; Stuart R. Chase; Gannon P. Kelly; James Cataline, Defendants-Appellees,
and
Does, 1-10, inclusive, Defendant.
No. 21-55867
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Argued and Submitted October 3, 2022 Pasadena, California
Filed June 1, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 8:20-cv-00705-DOC-DFM
Brenton W. Aitken Hands (argued) and Jerry L. Steering, Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering, Newport Beach, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Colin R. Burns (argued), Harper & Burns LLP, Orange, California, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: A. Wallace Tashima and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges, and Nancy D. Freudenthal,* District Judge.
Opinion by Judge Lee;
Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Tashima
OPINION
LEE, Circuit Judge:
At around nine o'clock in the evening, a concerned citizen called 911 to report a
Ford Mustang darting erratically in the streets. Behind the wheel was a young white male, along with a blindfolded female in the car. With the aid of the car's license plate number provided by the caller, Fountain Valley police officers figured out the home address of the driver and raced to that house.
But this was not an ongoing kidnapping. In reality, the driver, Benjamin Hill, was taking his wife for a "surprise" anniversary dinner. And his parents would soon experience a surprise of their own, as the police officers descended upon the home that they shared with their son. Before this mix-up could be cleared, the police officers ordered the Hills out of their home for obstructing the police and pushed the father to the ground as they handcuffed him. The Hills later sued, alleging (among other things) violations of their Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless arrests and excessive force.
We affirm the district court's summary judgment for the police officers. First, while the officers did not have probable cause to arrest Benjamin Hill's father for obstruction of justice, they are shielded by qualified immunity. There was no clearly established law that they could not arrest him, given his evasive behavior that appeared to interfere with an urgent investigation into a potential kidnapping. Second, his excessive force claim fails because he suffered only a minor injury when pushed to the grassy lawn during a tense encounter. Finally, his First Amendment retaliation claim does not pass muster because he presented no evidence that the officers arrested him because of his mild questioning of the officers.
I. The events of April 30, 2019.
On the night of April 30, 2019, a comedy of errors cascaded into an ordeal for the Hill family. That night, Benjamin decided to take his wife for a "surprise" anniversary dinner.1 As he drove her to the restaurant, someone called 911 to report a "dark grey Ford Mustang" being driven "erratically" by a black-haired white male between the age of twenty-five and thirty. The caller also ominously noted a blindfolded female passenger.
Based on the license plate number provided by the 911 caller, Fountain Valley police officers learned that the car belonged to Benjamin and obtained his home address. Officers Stuart Chase and Gannon Kelly then drove to Benjamin's home to "check the well-being" of the passenger.
Shortly after the officers arrived at the residence, Teresa—Benjamin's mother—pulled into the driveway. The officers asked her whether Benjamin lived there and drove a grey Mustang. Teresa answered yes to both questions and told them that Benjamin was not home. But when the officers asked for Benjamin's phone number, she balked. She later admitted that she stopped cooperating with the police because she wanted to warn her son about the officers before they had a chance to call him.
While the officers talked to Teresa, Stephen—Benjamin's father—exited the home to help bring their grandchildren into the house. The officers told the couple that they were investigating a report of erratic driving, once again asking for Benjamin's phone number. Then Teresa went inside with one of her granddaughters and tried to reach Benjamin.
Skeptical that the officers were only investigating erratic driving, Stephen demanded that the officers tell him "what was really going on." The officers told him that they wanted to talk to Benjamin, citing the report of a blindfolded female passenger in his car. Stephen responded that Benjamin was out with his wife and offered to pass along the officers' business cards. The officers told Stephen to take his other granddaughter inside and to return with Benjamin's phone number.
While waiting outside, the officers noticed someone moving inside the house by the bedroom window. Officer Chase then walked across the lawn to investigate further and saw a young male who matched Benjamin's description. Believing this person to be Benjamin, Officer Chase told him to exit the house. But the young male walked into a hallway, out of sight. Then Stephen entered the bedroom. Officer Chase asked Stephen, "Who's the other person here?" Not hearing the question, Stephen closed the curtains, hoping to keep the officers' flashlights from disturbing his granddaughter.
The officers would later learn that the young man inside the house was not Benjamin but his brother, Brett. But at the time, the officers suspected that Benjamin's parents were hiding him from law enforcement. Through a window on the front door, the officers saw Teresa, Stephen, and an unidentified male they suspected to be Benjamin. The officers checked to see if the door was locked. At this point, they told the unidentified male to exit the house. The officers then threatened to arrest all of them for obstruction if they did not leave the house, according to the Hills. The officers, however, dispute that they threatened to arrest Teresa.
Stephen stepped outside while Brett and Teresa remained inside. Stephen closed the door behind him and told the officers they could not come in. The parties dispute what happened next: Officer Kelly claims that he placed his foot in the doorjamb and Stephen closed the door on his foot; Stephen, on the other hand, claims that he never closed the door on Officer Kelly's foot. In any event, the officers immediately grabbed Stephen, led him to the front lawn, and brought him to the ground. While being brought to the grassy ground, Stephen's glasses cut him on the forehead. He also alleged neck and back injuries because Officer Kelly held Stephen down by kneeling on him. Several seconds after the officers led Stephen away from the front door, Brett and Teresa left the house to check on Stephen.
II. The Hills' lawsuit against Fountain Valley police officers.
The Hills sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force on behalf of Stephen, unreasonable seizure on behalf of all the Hills (including the two grandchildren), and First Amendment retaliation on behalf of Stephen. The Hills also brought state-law claims for battery, assault, and a violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 on behalf of Stephen, along with state-law claims for false arrest and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress on behalf of all the Hills.
The officers moved for summary judgment. The district court remanded the state law false arrest claim to state court and granted summary judgment to the officers on all the other claims.
The district court rejected Stephen's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, concluding that the government's interest in using force outweighed the slight intrusion into Stephen's Fourth Amendment interests. This result also meant that the battery, assault, and § 52.1 claims could not survive summary judgment.
Next, the district court considered the Hills' Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claims. The district court found that Stephen and Brett were the only ones seized. Because they were seized in the home and without a warrant, the police officers needed exigent circumstances and probable cause to arrest them. The district court found that the officers faced exigent circumstances and that they had probable cause for Brett's arrest. Although the district court found no probable cause for Stephen's arrest, it held that qualified immunity applied. The district court remanded the false arrest claim (which is coextensive with an unreasonable seizure claim) because federal qualified immunity does not apply to that state-law claim.
The district court also granted summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim because Stephen could not show that retaliatory animus was the but-for cause of his arrest. Finally, it granted summary judgment on the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, ruling that the Hills did not suffer severe emotional distress.
The Hills timely filed this appeal.
We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. Weiner v. San Diego Cnty., 210 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact. Allen v. City of Los Angeles, 66 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995).
I. The Hills fail to establish liability for their Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claims.
Brett, Teresa, and Stephen maintain that the police officers violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure when the officers ordered them to exit the home or face arrest for obstruction. See Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Johnson, 626 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir. 1980). We disagree. The officers never seized Brett or Teresa, so they cannot claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial