Ogden ex rel. Estate of Ogden v. County of Maui

Ninth Circuit

Ogden ex rel. Estate of Ogden v. County of Maui

342 F. App'x 241

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 2009

DocketNo. 08-16317

StatusPublished

This text of 342 F. App'x 241 (Ogden ex rel. Estate of Ogden v. County of Maui) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ogden ex rel. Estate of Ogden v. County of Maui, 342 F. App'x 241 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

Michael Ogden, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Charles Ogden, appeals the district court’s decision granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and finding that Officer Clifford Pacheco was entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm.

“Claims of excessive and deadly force are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard.” Long v. City & County of Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901, 906 (9th Cir.2007). “Factors to consider include the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). This court views officer safety as “the most important of the three ... factors.” Miller v. Clark County, 340 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2003).

In this case, the facts before the district court established, among other things, that (1) Ogden sprayed bear deterrent at Officer Pacheco, (2) bear deterrent is capable of causing irreversible eye damage, (3) Ogden did not drop the bear deterrent or attempt to flee the scene even after temporarily incapacitating Officer Pacheco, but instead continued to spray the deterrent while advancing toward Officer Pacheco, and (4) Officer Pacheco reasonably feared that Ogden intended to kill him and/or John Lucia and reasonably believed that shooting Ogden was the only way to protect himself and Lucia. On these facts, we do not believe that Officer Pacheco’s conduct constituted a Fourth Amendment violation. In any event, Officer Pacheco is entitled to qualified immunity. It certainly would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that Officer Pacheco’s “conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Wilkins v. City of Oakland, 350 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

*

Michael Ogden, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Charles Ogden, appeals the district court’s decision granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and finding that Officer Clifford Pacheco was entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm.

“Claims of excessive and deadly force are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard.” Long v. City & County of Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901, 906 (9th Cir.2007). “Factors to consider include the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). This court views officer safety as “the most important of the three ... factors.” Miller v. Clark County, 340 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2003).

In this case, the facts before the district court established, among other things, that (1) Ogden sprayed bear deterrent at Officer Pacheco, (2) bear deterrent is capable of causing irreversible eye damage, (3) Ogden did not drop the bear deterrent or attempt to flee the scene even after temporarily incapacitating Officer Pacheco, but instead continued to spray the deterrent while advancing toward Officer Pacheco, and (4) Officer Pacheco reasonably feared that Ogden intended to kill him and/or John Lucia and reasonably believed that shooting Ogden was the only way to protect himself and Lucia. On these facts, we do not believe that Officer Pacheco’s conduct constituted a Fourth Amendment violation. In any event, Officer Pacheco is entitled to qualified immunity. It certainly would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that Officer Pacheco’s “conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Wilkins v. City of Oakland, 350 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Kely Wilkins, Individually and as the Successor in Interest to Decedent William Alberto Wilkins William Alberto Wilkins, Individually the Estate of William Wilkins William Randolph Wilkins, a Minor, by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Kely Wilkins Fernando Wilkins, Individually Josefina Wilkins, Individually v. City of Oakland v. Tim Scarrott, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Oakland Andrew Koponen, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Oakland

350 F.3d 949 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Long v. City and County of Honolulu

511 F.3d 901 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 F. App'x 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogden-ex-rel-estate-of-ogden-v-county-of-maui-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack