Mendez v. County of Los Angeles, No. 13-56686 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit held that the unlawful entry into a residence by two sheriff's deputies, without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances, was the proximate cause of the subsequent shooting and injuries to plaintiffs. Therefore, the panel permitted the federal claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The panel held that if an officer has a duty not to enter in part because he or she might misperceive a victim's innocent acts as a threat and respond with deadly force, then the victim's innocent acts cannot be a superseding cause. In this case, the victim's action of moving the gun so that it was pointed in the deputies' direction was not a superseding cause of plaintiffs' injuries.
The panel also held that plaintiffs had an independent basis for recovery under California negligence law in light of Hayes v. County of San Diego, 57 Cal. 4th 622, 639 (2013). On remand, the panel noted that the judgment shall be amended to award all damages arising from the shooting in plaintiffs favor as proximately caused by the unconstitutional entry, and proximately caused by the failure to get a warrant. Judgment shall also be entered for plaintiffs on the California negligence claim for the same damages arising out of the shooting.
Court Description: Civil Rights On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law alleging that sheriff’s deputies violated plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights when during their search for a parolee-at-large, the deputies unlawfully entered plaintiffs’ residence and shot them multiple times. Plaintiffs, Angel Mendez and Jennifer Lynn Garcia, were sleeping in a small one-room shed located in the backyard of the main house when defendants entered the shed, without a
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 2, 2016.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.