No. 20-1690

Ramon Cortesluna v. Daniel Rivas-Villegas, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-06-07
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response WaivedRelisted (3) Experienced Counsel
Tags: civil-rights due-process excessive-force graham-factors material-facts police-shooting qualified-immunity scott-v-harris summary-judgment tolan-v-cotton video-evidence
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-10-15 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Ninth Circuit depart from longstanding procedure and precedent and fail to view video and other evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff with respect to the central facts of the case and accept a version of facts that is a 'visible fiction' when it 'should have viewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape' and other evidence?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did the Ninth Circuit depart from longstanding procedure and precedent and fail to view video and other evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff with respect to the central facts of the case and accept a version of facts that is a “visible fiction” when it “should have viewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape” and other evidence? Tolan v. Cotton, 572 USS. 650 (2014); Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007). Specifically, in light of all the video, audio and other evidence, are there genuine disputes of material fact about each Graham factor in this excessive force case, including: (1) whether a reasonable officer would have perceived an immediate threat or resistance because a subject lowered his hands toward his thighs and thus toward a knife in a side pocket of baggy sweatpants when the subject’s hands were visibly empty and visibly not grasping for a weapon; (2) whether a reasonable officer would have assessed the alleged crime as severe after investigation at the scene with little indicia supporting the “911” caller’s dire version of events; and (8) whether a reasonable officer would have intervened to calm down an officer stating in advance that he was going to shoot the subject with less lethal?

Docket Entries

2021-10-18
Petition DENIED.
2021-10-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/15/2021.
2021-10-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/8/2021.
2021-07-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-07-07
Waiver of right of respondent Daniel Rivas-Villegas to respond filed.
2021-06-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 7, 2021)

Attorneys

Daniel Rivas-Villegas
Timothy Towery CoatesGreines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Respondent
Timothy Towery CoatesGreines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Respondent
Ramon Cortesluna
Robert George HowieHowie & Smith, LLP, Petitioner
Robert George HowieHowie & Smith, LLP, Petitioner