Love v. Villacana

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 14, 2025
• Docket: 23-3991
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHANE LOVE, No. 23-3991

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-06557-PA-SP v.

AARON VILLACANA, Pasadena PD MEMORANDUM* Officer, individually and in official capacity; THOMAS BUTLER, Pasadena PD Officer, individually and in official capacity; ROBERT GRIFFITH, Pasadena PD Officer, individually and in official capacity; MICHAEL OROSCO, Pasadena PD Officer, individually and in official capacity; PHILLIP POIRIER, Pasadena PD Officer, individually and in official capacity; RAFAEL SANTIAGO, Pasadena PD Officer, individually and in official capacity; CITY OF PASADENA; PHILLIP SANCHEZ, Former PPD Chief, individually and in official capacity; PEREZ, PPD Chief, individually and in official capacity; DOES, 1-10 inclusive,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Argued and Submitted April 21, 2025 San Diego, California

Before: WALLACE and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER* District Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Shane Love (“Love”) appeals from the district court’s

dismissal of his claim that City of Pasadena law enforcement officers violated the

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when they killed Reginald

Thomas, Love’s father figure who resided with and raised Love. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Recently, in Regino v. Staley, we reiterated that when determining whether a

right is cognizable to state a substantive due process claim, a district court must

begin with a “‘careful description’ of the asserted fundamental liberty interest.”

133 F.4th 951, 960 (9th Cir. 2025), quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S.

702, 720–21 (1997). The district court must then decide whether an asserted interest

is “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in

the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if [it

was] sacrificed.” Id., quoting Khachatryan v. Blinken, 4 F.4th 841, 858 (9th Cir.

2021).

Here, as in Regino, and without its guidance, the district court did not

* The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

2 undertake such an analysis. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for the district court

to apply the Glucksberg analysis consistent with Regino.

VACATED AND REMANDED.