Kirkman v. State of California

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 25-1889
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDRA KIRKMAN, individually and as No. 25-1889 successor-in-interest to John Alaniz, D.C. No. deceased; CARLOS ALANIZ, individually 2:23-cv-07532-DMG-SSC and as successor-in-interest to John Alaniz, deceased, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; RAMON SILVA,

Defendants - Appellants,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 10, 2026 Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LIBURDI, District Judge.**

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Michael T. Liburdi, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. The State of California and California Highway Patrol Officer Ramon Silva

(Silva) appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment

based on qualified immunity in this case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and

stemming from Silva fatally shooting John Alaniz (Alaniz). “We review de novo

the district court’s decision denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified

immunity.” Peck v. Montoya, 51 F.4th 877, 884 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).

We affirm.

1. We generally lack jurisdiction to review an interlocutory appeal

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, i.e., which facts a party may, or may

not, be able to establish at trial. See Est. of Anderson v. Marsh, 985 F.3d 726, 732-

33 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). However, if the interlocutory appeal “raises

purely legal questions . . . such as whether his alleged conduct violated clearly

established law,” we have jurisdiction to “review those issues.” Id. at 731. If the

facts are disputed, we must accept Plaintiffs’ version of events unless “blatantly

contradicted by the record.” Scott v. Smith, 109 F.4th 1215, 1222 (9th Cir. 2024)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Because the video evidence in this case does not blatantly contradict

Plaintiffs’ version of the facts, we resolve all factual disputes in Plaintiffs’ favor.

See id. Viewed in that light, a reasonable jury could conclude that Silva’s actions

constituted an excessive use of force. Further, the law is clearly established that it

2 25-1889 is unconstitutional to use deadly force against an unarmed individual who poses no

threat to the officer or others. See Espinosa v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 598

F.3d 528, 533, 538 (9th Cir. 2010); see also A. K. H. by and through Landeros v.

City of Tustin, 837 F.3d 1005, 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2016) (Landeros).

To constitute clearly established law, “existing precedent” need not be

directly on point, so long as it “place[s] the statutory or constitutional question

beyond debate.” Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1, 5 (2021) (per curiam)

(citation omitted). Espinosa and Landeros establish that when an officer makes a

mistake of fact as to whether a suspect is armed and thus poses an imminent threat

to the officer or someone else, the reasonableness of that mistake determines

whether deadly force was excessive. See Espinosa, 598 F.3d at 538; see also

Landeros, 839 F.3d at 1011-12. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to

Plaintiffs, Officer Silva’s mistaken belief that Alaniz possessed a gun was not

reasonable. See Espinosa, 598 F.3d at 538. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s denial of qualified immunity. See Landeros, 837 F.3d at 1013.

AFFIRMED.

3 25-1889