Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Deputy Exclaiming ‘I’ma Shoot Him’ Before Deadly Encounter Does Not Show Malice
Opinion Reverses Denial of Qualified Immunity Based on Statement, Saying Comment Does Support Reasonable Conclusion of Intent to Harm
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that qualified immunity was improperly denied to a sheriff’s deputy who exclaimed that he was going to shoot the suspect before he fired his weapon, saying a District Court judge erred in finding that the statement supported a reasonable conclusion that the officer may have shot the victim with a “purpose to harm” rather than in self-defense.
Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability for constitutional violations if the illegality of the conduct was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident.
To show a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, a party filing a deprivation-of-life claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 must show that the deputy’s use of deadly force “shocks the conscience.” When the conduct occurs in circumstances requiring a “snap” decision, the officer’s actions will only be found to meet that standard if the intent was to cause harm rather than for self-protection or to protect others from mortal danger.
In a memorandum decision, signed by Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan and Senior Circuit Judges Mary M. Schroeder and William A. Fletcher, the court said that District Court Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the Central District of California erred in concluding that the statement in issue was evidence of a constitutional violation.
Traffic Violation
On Jan. 10, 2020, Juan Ruiz had just picked up his two-year-old son, identified in court records as “J.A.,” when two San Bernardino County Sherriff’s deputies—Eid Fakhoury and Charles Becker—tried to pull him over for a traffic violation. A pursuit ensued.
Eventually, Ruiz pulled his Buick to the curb, and the officers parked immediately behind him. As Fakhoury and Becker exited, Ruiz suddenly slammed his vehicle into reverse and accelerated toward the deputies, who were each still standing behind the doors of the patrol car.
According to the deputies, Ruiz’s vehicle rammed into the patrol car, knocking each of them to the ground. Fakhoury shouted “I’ma shoot him” before he and Becker fired their weapons, killing Ruiz; the child was uninjured.
J.A., through his guardian Cindy Plasencia, and Ruiz’s mother, Maria Ruiz Vasquez, filed a complaint against the deputies and the county in November 2020, asserting three claims under §1983—excessive force, deprivation of life, and interference with the parent-child relationship—as well as state law causes of action, including wrongful death and negligence.
In February 2023, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting, among other things, qualified immunity as to the three §1983 claims.
Frimpong’s View
Frimpong denied qualified immunity to the deputies. As to the deprivation of life claim, she noted that there were factual disputes as to whether the Buick collided with the police car, and if it was still accelerating when the shots were fired.
She opined:
“A reasonable jury could find that Fakhoury and Becker did not face danger and acted with a purpose to harm Ruiz….[R]elevant is Fakhoury’s statement ‘I’ma shoot him,’ captured on the audio recording….While the tape is susceptible to multiple interpretations, one possible interpretation is that Fakhoury decided to shoot Ruiz after any threat had ended, and as retribution for Ruiz’s decision to briefly back up towards Fakhoury and Becker or for allegedly fleeing in the first place. If shown, this would constitute a purpose to harm unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement objective.”
Callahan, Schroeder, and Fletcher affirmed the order as to the excessive force claim, saying the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and noting that it was clearly established that officers are not justified in shooting at a slow-moving vehicle which is unlikely to cause them harm. They reversed as to the deprivation of life and interference with the parent-child relationship claims.
Ninth Circuit’s View
The panel wrote:
“[T]he district court reasoned that the single statement by Fakhoury of ‘I’ma shoot him,’ in these circumstances, could lead a reasonable juror to conclude the Deputy Defendants had a ‘purpose to harm.’ We disagree.”
Pointing out that Frimpong cited no case to support the proposition that such a comment evinced a purpose to harm, they concluded that “we find this statement alone is insufficient to establish subjective intent.”
Because the jurists found that there was no evidence of any malicious intent on the part of Fakhoury, they declared “there was no constitutional violation” and so no need to “determine whether the right was clearly established.”
As to the parent-client relationship claim, they concluded:
“It is unclear whether the alleged constitutional right was violated, which alone is sufficient to reverse the district court…Moreover, Plaintiffs fail to identify a case clearly establishing this constitutional right. We thus cannot conclude that Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated or that those rights were clearly established. Therefore, denial of qualified immunity as to [this] claim…was inappropriate.”
The case is J.A. v. County of San Bernardino, 23-4180.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company