Joseph Nelson v. Thurston County ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 3 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH A. NELSON, individually and as No. 19-35284
personal representative of the estate and its
statutory beneficiaries estate of Joel A. D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05184-RBL
Nelson,
Plaintiff-Appellee, MEMORANDUM*
v.
THURSTON COUNTY, a Washington
municipality; RODNEY T. DITRICH,
Defendants,
DOES, 1 through 15, individually,
Defendant,
and
JOHN D. SNAZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
JOSEPH A. NELSON, individually and as No. 19-35286
personal representative of the estate and its
statutory beneficiaries estate of Joel A. D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05184-RBL
Nelson,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RODNEY T. DITRICH,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
JOHN D. SNAZA; DOES, 1 through 15,
individually,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 1, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: McKEOWN, N.R. SMITH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
John Snaza and Rodney Ditrich appeal the denial of their motions for
summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm as to Ditrich, but reverse and remand as to Snaza.
We consider an interlocutory appeal of denial of summary judgment based
on qualified immunity “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Pauluk v.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
Savage, 836 F.3d 1117, 1120–21 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472
U.S. 511, 530 (1985)). We review de novo a determination of qualified immunity
on summary judgment, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Martinez v. City of Clovis, 943 F.3d 1260, 1270 (9th Cir. 2019).
Ditrich argues his appeal turns on a legal issue, but “only in the absence of
material disputes is it ‘a pure question of law,’” Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d
1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381 n.8,
(2007)). Ditrich contests the events of the shooting, although appeals such as these
are appropriate “only if the appellant concedes the facts.” Adams v. Speers, 473
F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2007). What Ditrich “most forcefully contests is whether
his alternative account of the shooting should be accepted as true. Factual disputes
of that order must be resolved by a jury, not by a court adjudicating a motion for
summary judgment.” Orn v. City of Tacoma, 949 F.3d 1167, 1181 (9th Cir. 2020)
(citing Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014)); see also Gonzalez v. City of
Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 795 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (noting that “summary
judgment should be granted sparingly in excessive force cases,” especially “where
the only witness other than the officers was killed during the encounter”).
Weighing inconsistent testimony about the shooting, as well as reports that
cast doubt on Ditrich’s version of events, the district court properly denied
Ditrich’s motion for summary judgment. See Newmaker v. City of Fortuna, 842
3
F.3d 1108, 1116 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity should not be granted when
other evidence in the record, such as medical reports, contemporaneous statements
by the officer, the available physical evidence, and any expert testimony proffered
by the plaintiff is inconsistent with material evidence proffered by the defendant.”
(punctuation and citation omitted)).
Snaza’s appeal, on the other hand, “turns on an issue of law.” Pauluk, 836
F.3d at 1121. “[I]n resolving a motion for summary judgment based on qualified
immunity, a court must carefully examine the specific factual allegations against
each individual defendant . . . .” Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1287 (9th
Cir. 2000). The district court, however, identified no issues of material fact
relating to Snaza, and failed to explain the basis for denying his motion. We
accordingly reverse the district court’s order as to Snaza so that the district court
may undertake the requisite factual examination of the allegations against him.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
Each party shall pay its own costs on appeal.
4