Hughes v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 21 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-17144 |
| Parties | Corey HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael RODRIGUEZ; Robert Molthen; Harvey Casillas; Chris Rodriguez, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Matthew J. Kita (argued), Dallas, Texas, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jamil R. Ghannam (argued), Deputy City Attorney; John M. Luebberke, City Attorney; Office of the City Attorney, Stockton, California; for Defendants-Appellees Michael Rodriguez and Robert Molthen.
Robert M. Perkins III (argued) and Martha Ehlenbach, Deputy Attorneys General; Misha D. Igra, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Monica N. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Rob Bonta, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, California; for Defendants-Appellees Harvey Casillas and Chris Rodriguez.
Before: Ronald M. Gould and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges, and Eric N. Vitaliano,** District Judge.
Corey Hughes escaped from a San Joaquin County Jail highway work crew and lived on the lam for three weeks. It took authorities from three law enforcement agencies and a trained police dog to apprehend Hughes. During his capture, Hughes sustained dog bites and bruising to his leg, and minor abrasions to his head
and face.
Hughes sued two Stockton Police Department officers and two California Department of Corrections officers involved in his apprehension under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and brought related state law claims. The district court granted the officers' motion for summary judgment on all claims. Hughes appeals, contending that even though objective bodycam footage largely disproved his testimony, (1) disputes of material fact remain as to whether excessive force was used in violation of the Eighth Amendment and state law, and (2) the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.
We agree in part. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm summary judgment as to the claims against Officer Robert Molthen, Agent Chris Rodriguez, and Agent Harvey Casillas. But we reverse as to the claims against Officer Michael Rodriguez.
The facts preceding Hughes's apprehension by law enforcement are largely uncontested. Hughes pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a loaded firearm with a large capacity magazine, a misdemeanor offense. While serving his 185-day sentence in the San Joaquin County jail, Hughes was assigned to a highway work crew. On November 27, 2017, just ten days into his sentence, Hughes jumped over a fence while on the work crew and escaped the custody of San Joaquin County.
Hughes was on the lam for more than three weeks. During this time, the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office joined forces with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Fugitive Apprehension Team in the search for Hughes. Agent Chris Rodriguez of the Fugitive Apprehension Team led the investigation into Hughes's whereabouts.
During his investigation, Agent Chris Rodriguez learned the following facts about Hughes: (1) Hughes had prior convictions for possession of a stolen vehicle, weapons possession, and evading a peace officer with disregard for safety, (2) Hughes was affiliated with a violent street gang, (3) Hughes had training in mixed martial arts, and (4) Hughes was possibly under the influence of methamphetamine. These facts led Agent Chris Rodriguez to conclude that Hughes posed a danger to the public and the arresting team.
On December 21, 2017, law enforcement learned from the mother of Hughes's children that Hughes might be hiding at the home of his friend, Hal Ward, at 9041 Don Avenue, Stockton. At 10:30 AM that morning, Agent Chris Rodriguez and Agent Harvey Casillas, also of the Fugitive Apprehension Team, went to Ward's home, knocked on the door, and received no response. Shortly thereafter, Ward exited the home and informed Agent Chris Rodriguez and Agent Casillas that Hughes was inside. Ward gave Agent Casillas his keys and granted permission to enter the home.
Agent Chris Rodriguez contacted members of the Stockton Police Department to participate in the extraction of Hughes from the home. Officer Michael Rodriguez and Officer Robert Molthen arrived at 9041 Don Avenue. Officer Michael Rodriguez was accompanied by Cain, a trained police dog.
The Stockton Police Department and the San Joaquin County Sherriff's Department created a perimeter around the neighborhood and requested fly-over air support from the California Highway Patrol. Officers used a loudspeaker to urge Hughes to exit the home. When this effort was unsuccessful, the Stockton Police Department assembled an entry team consisting of Agent Chris Rodriguez, Agent Casillas, Officer Michael Rodriguez, and Cain. The team gathered in the home's front entryway.
The moment the entry team gathered by the front door is the moment at which the factual accounts diverge. Hughes testified at deposition that he was sleeping in the back bedroom of the home when he heard officers yelling at him from the front door to come out. He shouted back repeatedly at a loud volume, "Hold on, I'm coming out!" until he was just ten feet away from the front door. Hughes walked from the back bedroom with his hands up in a gesture of surrender. He kept his arms up and peered around the corner to make eye contact with Officer Michael Rodriguez. It was only after Hughes made eye contact and showed his empty hands that Officer Michael Rodriguez released Cain. Cain immediately attacked Hughes, which caused Hughes to collapse into the hallway.
Once he was on the ground, officers piled on top of Hughes while Cain continued to bite. Hughes testified that he did not resist arrest, but that he moved involuntarily in response to Cain biting and pulling at his limbs. After only a few seconds, the officers had Hughes face-down with his hands cuffed behind his back. Once Hughes was handcuffed and subdued, Hughes was punched in the head and face, and Cain continued to bite Hughes, for "two minutes, if not more."
The law enforcement account differs substantially. Bodycam footage from Officer Michael Rodriguez and Officer Molthen shows the law enforcement team assembled just outside the home's open front door. In the footage, Officer Michael Rodriguez can be seen and heard shouting twice, "Stockton P.D., come on out or you're going to get bit by a police dog!" However, there is no audible reply from Hughes. The camera, pointed precisely where Hughes claims to have been standing with his hands up, shows only an empty hallway. Hughes's face and arms are not in the officers' view. Hughes does not appear in the camera's frame until Cain attacks, and Hughes tumbles onto the floor and into the hallway. This footage flatly refutes Hughes' claim that he was standing in the hallway with his arms up in surrender mode.
The officers engaged in a physical struggle with Hughes. Officer Michael Rodriguez testified that his bodycam was kicked off of his chest, and while the footage does not depict the kick, Officer Michael Rodriguez's bodycam does turn off suddenly. Officer Michael Rodriguez admits to punching Hughes in the head before Hughes was handcuffed because Hughes was grabbing Officer Michael Rodriguez's groin area, near the gun on his belt.
The footage clearly refutes Hughes's claim that he was beaten for "two minutes if not more," as no more than a single minute elapses between the moment Officer Michael Rodriguez releases the dog and the moment Hughes is taken into custody. Importantly, however, the footage does not clearly and unmistakably depict whether punches were thrown before or after Hughes was handcuffed. The defendant officers argue that the audio from Officer Molthen's bodycam contains the unmistakable sound of handcuffs snapping on Hughes's hands, after which Hughes can be heard shouting and an off-camera officer announces that Hughes is in custody, after which the scene goes quiet, and no sounds of beating or dog biting can be heard. Appellees argue that the series of events indicated by this audio necessarily rebuts Hughes's testimony that he was beaten after he was handcuffed.
After his apprehension, Hughes went to the hospital by ambulance for treatment for the dog bites to his left leg, abrasions to his head
and face, and bruising on his upper right thigh. Hughes testified that he has scarring and residual soreness in his left leg due to the dog bites.
Hughes filed suit in the Eastern District of California. He sued all defendants, Officer Michael Rodriguez, Officer Molthen, Agent Chris Rodriguez, and Agent Casillas, for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligence. He sued Officer Michael Rodriguez alone under California's Bane Act1 and for battery. The defendant law enforcement officers filed motions for summary judgment, which the district court granted as to all claims.
"We review a district court's grant of summary judgment and its qualified immunity determinations de novo." Furnace v. Sullivan , 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013).
"[T]he first step in assessing the constitutionality of [the officers'] actions is to determine the relevant facts." Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 378, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). Typically, when ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the district court is required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—in this case, Hughes. Saucier v. Katz , 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). However, the district court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Scott , viewed the facts in the light depicted by the officers' bodycam footage. As explained below, the district court properly relied on the bodycam footage and audio to the extent they "blatantly contradicted" Hughes's deposition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dodge v. Evergreen School District #114
...de novo the district court's summary judgment rulings, including its determinations regarding qualified immunity. Hughes v. Rodriguez , 31 F.4th 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2022).A. Individual Defendants The district court granted the individual defendants summary judgment, concluding that they we......
-
Simmons v. Arnett
...v. Rodriguez found that questions of fact precluded qualified immunity to an officer for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment. 31 F.4th 1211, 1224–25 (9th Cir. 2022). In Hughes , an escaped prisoner claimed that, after police officers had apprehended him by placing him in handcuffs, o......
-
Wallace v. City of Fresno
...intimidation, threats, or coercion. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of Aguilar on Wallace's Bane Act claim is appropriate. See Hughes, 31 F.4th at 1224. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Parties' Arguments Defendants argue that the elements necessary to show an intentional i......
-
Dodge v. Evergreen Sch. Dist. #114
... ... rulings, including its determinations regarding qualified ... immunity. Hughes" v. Rodriguez , 31 F.4th 1211, 1218 ... (9th Cir. 2022) ... A ... Individual Defendants ... \xC2" ... ...