Whether a plaintiff's injuries resulting from a police officer's use of force may be proximately caused by the officer's failure to secure a search warrant

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This matter was previously before this Court and resulted in the decision County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 137 S.Ct. 1539 (2017), wherein this Court disapproved the “provocation rule” created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”). Although the Deputies’ use of force was found to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the “provocation rule” allowed the Plaintiffs to recover damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injuries sustained after being shot by two Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Deputies, due to an earlier constitutional violation. In addition, this Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision to award the same damages to the Plaintiffs based upon the Deputies’ warrantless entry into the shed in which the Plaintiffs were residing. This Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to determine whether the Plaintiffs’ shooting injuries were proximately caused by the Deputies’ failure to secure a search warrant at the outset, cautioning the Ninth Circuit to refrain from conflating the foreseeable risks stemming from other constitutional violations in its analysis. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit disregarded this Court’s clear directives on remand and whether, in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, a plaintiff's injuries resulting from a police officer’s use of force may be proximately caused by the officer’s failure to secure a search warrant? ii 2. Whether, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, conduct giving rise to an officer’s reasonable use of force is an intervening, superseding event which breaks the chain of causation for damages stemming from the officer’s failure to secure a warrant? 3. Whether a federal Court of Appeals may reverse a district court’s determination under Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that an officer did not breach his duty of care to use reasonable force in a negligence action, without applying a clearly erroneous standard of review?