LOS ANGELES, Calif. — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Oct. 21 that former Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva was entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit stemming from deputies’ alleged use of excessive force against demonstrators during a 2020 protest in South Los Angeles.
Astorga et al. v. Villanueva was brought by plaintiffs Christina Astorga and Hugo Padilla after sheriff’s deputies allegedly fired less-lethal projectiles at retreating demonstrators following the declaration of an unlawful assembly. Villanueva was not present at the demonstration; however, the plaintiffs argued that he bore personal responsibility for the alleged misconduct as the head of the Sheriff’s Department.
The plaintiffs sued Villanueva under federal civil rights law, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Villanueva subsequently moved for summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he was not personally involved in the deputies’ conduct.
U.S. District Judge André Birotte, Jr., denied Villanueva’s motion, allowing the lawsuit against him to proceed.
The Ninth Circuit reversed that decision Oct. 21, determining that existing precedent did not sufficiently establish that a supervisor in Villanueva’s position could be held liable under the circumstances of the lawsuit.
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials from liability for civil damages under certain circumstances. The Ninth Circuit cited Hopson v. Alexander in explaining that officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”
The court applied this standard in determining that Villanueva was entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs had not identified clearly established law prohibiting his specific conduct as a supervisor.
The appellate panel explained that supervisory liability under the Fourth Amendment requires a showing that a reasonable supervisor would have understood that his own conduct was unlawful under the circumstances. The plaintiffs therefore needed to establish a sufficient legal basis for holding Villanueva personally responsible, rather than relying solely on the alleged unconstitutional actions of deputies under his supervision.
The panel also cited Nelson v. City of Davis in evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims. The 2012 case involved a student who was struck and injured by pepperball projectiles fired by police during a gathering.
The Nelson decision examined constitutional restrictions on police use of force against individuals who do not pose an immediate threat, raising issues similar to those involved in the 2020 demonstration.
However, the Ninth Circuit determined that Nelson addressed the actions of officers directly involved in using force, rather than the potential liability of supervisors who were not present. The court also found that Deorle v. Rutherford, another excessive-force case cited by the plaintiffs, did not address supervisory conduct.
The appellate panel additionally examined Larez v. City of Los Angeles, a 1991 Ninth Circuit decision involving a police chief who had approved or encouraged excessive force by officers under his supervision.
In Larez, the police chief signed a letter indicating that an officer would not face disciplinary action for constitutional violations. The court found that the chief had condoned and encouraged the misconduct of subordinates through his own actions.
The Ninth Circuit determined that Villanueva’s conduct was materially different from the police chief’s conduct in Larez. According to the ruling, Villanueva had taken no affirmative action to approve, encourage or ratify the deputies’ alleged misconduct after the demonstration.
The court also noted that, unlike the police chief in Larez, Villanueva had not dismissed complaints against deputies.
Because the earlier ruling did not address sufficiently similar supervisory conduct, the panel concluded that it could not have provided Villanueva with clear notice that his actions violated the Constitution.
The court therefore determined that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that clearly established law prohibited Villanueva’s supervisory conduct, entitling him to qualified immunity.
The appellate court did not determine whether deputies’ alleged use of projectiles against demonstrators violated their constitutional rights. Its ruling addressed only whether Villanueva was entitled to qualified immunity from the claims against him.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
