Sightler v. City of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court received a Ninth Circuit mandate reversing its prior denial of qualified immunity for individual officers in a civil rights case. The court ordered the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the City of San Diego and the individual officers and to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Enter judgment in favor of the City of San Diego and Officers Nisleit, McClain, Pimienta, Johnson, Longen, and Harbin“The clerk is directed to (1) spread the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, (2) enter judgment in favor of the City of San Diego and Officers Nisleit, McClain, Pimienta, Johnson, Longen, and Harbin, and (3) close the case.” | agree with court The district court is bound by the Ninth Circuit's mandate, which explicitly reversed the lower court's decision and directed the entry of judgment in favor of the individual officers. The district court's action to enter that judgment is a ministerial duty required by the appellate mandate. |
Vacate the hearing scheduled for November 25, 2019“The hearing currently scheduled for November 25, 2019 is VACATED.” | agree with court Since the Ninth Circuit's mandate resolved the merits of the claims against the individual officers and the City was already found not liable, no further proceedings are necessary. Vacating the hearing is a logical procedural consequence of the case being closed. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural implementation of a binding appellate mandate. It correctly identifies the Ninth Circuit's holding and executes the directed relief. There are no gaps or questionable reasoning because the court is not exercising discretion but rather complying with a higher court's directive.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DEMETRICE SIGHTLER, CASE NO. 15cv2235-LAB (MSB)
11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON REMAND 12 vs. 13 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 14 Defendants.
15 In March 2018, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion 16 for Summary Judgment. As relevant here, the Court found that the City of San Diego was 17 not liable for harms to Plaintiff Demetrice Sightler, but that there were triable issues of 18 fact as to whether the individual officers were liable. It also held that the individual officers 19 were not entitled to qualified immunity. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that while 20 Sightler plausibly alleged the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights, he had not 21 identified “sufficiently specific constitutional precedents to alert [Defendants that their] 22 particular conduct was unlawful.” Shafer v. Cty. of Santa Barbara, 868 F.3d 1110, 1118 23 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the appellate court reversed with directions to enter 24 judgment in favor of the individual officers. 25 In light of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, no further proceedings are necessary in this 26 Court. The clerk is directed to (1) spread the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, (2) enter judgment 27 in favor of the City of San Diego and Officers Nisleit, McClain, Pimienta, Johnson, Longen, 28 1 || and Harbin, and (3) close the case. The hearing currently scheduled for November 25, 2 || 2019 is VACATED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: October 21, 2019 lau / A (Ay wy 5 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS 6 Chief United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28