Ramon Cortesluna v. Manuel Leon

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAMON CORTESLUNA, No. 19-15105

Plaintiff-Appellant,

D.C. No. v. 3:17-cv-05133-

JSC MANUEL LEON; ROBERT KENSIC; DANIEL RIVAS-VILLEGAS; CITY OF UNION CITY, California, ORDER

Defendants-Appellees.

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed January 12, 2022 Before: Ronald Lee Gilman,* Susan P. Graber, and

Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges.

Order 2 CORTESLUNA V. LEON

SUMMARY**

Civil Rights

On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the federal claims against Defendant Daniel Rivas-Villegas and remanded to the district court for consideration of the other elements of Plaintiff’s Monell claim, noting that the Supreme Court’s holding that Rivas-Villegas did not violate clearly established law left undisturbed the majority’s conclusion that Rivas-Villegas used excessive force.

With respect to Plaintiff’s state-law claims relating to Rivas-Villegas’s conduct, and Plaintiff’s other remaining claims, including against other Defendants, the panel stated that the prior majority opinion, Cortesluna v. Leon, 979 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2020), would remain the same.

COUNSEL

Audrey Smith and Robert G. Howie, Howie & Smith LLP, San Mateo, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lori A. Sebransky and Kevin P. Allen, Allen Glaessner Hazelwood & Werth LLP, San Francisco, California, for Defendants-Appellees.

CORTESLUNA V. LEON 3 James R. Touchstone and Denise L. Rocawich, Jones & Mayer, Fullerton, California, for Amici Curiae California State Sheriffs’ Association, California Police Chiefs Association, and California Peace Officers’ Association. Michael P. Stone and Muna Busailah, Stone Busailah LLP, Pasadena, California, for Amicus Curiae Riverside Sheriffs’ Association.

ORDER

In light of the recent order of the Supreme Court of the United States, Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 142 S. Ct. 4 (2021) (per curiam), we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the federal claims against Defendant Daniel Rivas-Villegas. Because the Supreme Court’s holding that Rivas-Villegas did not violate clearly established law left undisturbed the majority’s conclusion that, viewing “all the evidence in Plaintiff’s favor, Rivas-Villegas used excessive force,” see Cortesluna v. Leon, 979 F.3d 645, 654 (9th Cir. 2020), we remand to the district court for consideration of the other elements of Plaintiff’s Monell claim based on Rivas-Villegas’s conduct and whether that claim can properly be resolved on summary judgment. With respect to Plaintiff’s state-law claims relating to Rivas-Villegas’s conduct, and Plaintiff’s other remaining claims, including against other Defendants, our prior majority opinion, Cortesluna v. Leon, 979 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2020), remains the same.