Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
$1.5 Million Award Is Proper in Case Over Officer Negligence
Opinion Says There’s No Conflict Between Jury’s Findings That Deputies Did Not Use Excessive Force by Applying Knees to Back of Man Crying Out for Help, but Acted Negligently by Failing to Offer Aid Once Restrained
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
|
|
|
The above photograph, showing the decedent Kevin Niedzialek holding an unknown baby, was posted on the GoFundMe website as part of a fundraising appeal to help with funeral expenses. |
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday upheld a $1.5 million award to the sister of a man who died following an encounter with two Riverside County Sheriff’s Department deputies, who had left the decedent lying on his stomach in handcuffs, despite his pleas for help, after deploying a taser and applying a knee to his back, saying that the jury’s verdict finding no Fourth Amendment violation did not preclude relief on a state law negligence claim.
In an opinion, written by Circuit Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez and joined in by Circuit Judge Kim M. Wardlaw and Senior District Court Judge Barbara M. Lynn of the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation, the court said the mixed verdict could be reconciled because the jury could have determined that the officers acted reasonably in their application of force but breached a duty of care by not checking on the decedent’s welfare after he was restrained.
At issue is the application of the 2013 California Supreme Court decision in Hayes v. County of San Diego, which held that California’s tort law’s “reasonable care” standard is distinct from that demanded by the Fourth Amendment. In that case, the high court answered the question of whether negligence liability can stem from actions taken by officers before the application of force.
In an opinion authored by then-Justice Joyce Kennard, now retired, the court said:
“Law enforcement personnel’s tactical conduct and decisions preceding the use of deadly force are relevant considerations under California law in determining whether the use of deadly force gives rise to negligence liability.”
The county defendants argued that Hayes’ finding that a plaintiff may have a claim under California negligence law independent of the Fourth Amendment’s protections only applies to cases challenging an officer’s pre-force conduct. Rejecting that premise, Sanchez wrote:
“Notwithstanding Hayes’s clear statement that California tort law’s ‘reasonable care’ standard is distinct from the Fourth Amendment’s ‘reasonableness’ standard,...Defendants argue that the only difference between a federal excessive force claim and a California negligence claim is with respect to an officer’s tactical conduct and decisions preceding his or her use of lethal force. We disagree with Defendants’ narrow reading of Hayes.”
Psychotic Meltdown
The question arose after Deputies Brian Keeney and Sonia Gomez responded to calls from a Temecula apartment complex on July 29, 2019, after several witnesses reported that a man was having a “psychotic meltdown” and bleeding from the head. The man, Kevin Niedzialek, had been seen knocking on doors, talking to himself, and trying to fight a tree.
When the deputies arrived, each officer called for medical assistance. Gomez deployed her taser twice, striking Niedzialek in the arm and on the right side of his ribcage, after he abruptly advanced toward Keeney.
After Niedzialek was on the ground, the deputies struggled to restrain him, as he was kicking and flailing his legs. Keeney placed his knee on Niedzialek’s back while the suspect was face down on the ground, and the two were able to secure him in handcuffs.
He continued to roll and flail his limbs, while Keeney’s knee remained on his back, and cried out for help, asking the officers to “get me up.” Keeney lifted his knee, but Niedzialek lay motionless for over four minutes before Gomez checked his pulse, which was faint.
Neither deputy performed CPR until the paramedics arrived, two minutes later. He died the next day at the hospital; a county medical examiner found that his death was caused by methamphetamine use, after noting that the decedent had more than three times the toxic level of the drug in his system.
Complaint Filed
Niedzialek’s sister and successor-in-interest, Tracy Alves, filed a complaint against the County of Riverside, Sheriff-Coroner Chad Bianco, and the deputies, asserting an excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 as well as state law causes of action for battery and negligence. Before the trial began, all claims against Keeney and Gomez were dropped at the plaintiff’s request.
During the trial, Alves called a cardiologist, Dr. Daniel Wohlgelernter, who testified that the deputies’ actions contributed to the decedent’s death, saying that Niedzialek was unable to recover from an “oxygen debt” due to the deputies’ choice to leave him face down while applying pressure to his back.
The jury unanimously found for the defendants on the excessive force and state law battery claims, and for Alves on her state law negligence cause of action, apportioning 80% of the fault to Niedzialek. They awarded $7.5 million in damages.
District Court Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the Central District of California ruled against the defendants on a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), rejecting the contention that the jury was foreclosed from finding for Plaintiff on the issue of negligence after it had determined that Deputies Keeney and Gomez had not used unreasonable force.
Bernal ordered that the award be reduced to $1.5 million to account for the jury’s finding of contributory negligence. The defendants appealed the denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law and the ensuing judgment.
Confusion Has Arisen
Sanchez wrote:
“Because the Fourth Amendment and California negligence law both focus on whether an officer’s use of deadly force has been reasonable under a totality of the circumstances, confusion has arisen whether these two standards are the same….That question was settled by the California Supreme Court in Hayes….”
Saying that the “focus on conduct preceding the use of deadly force in Hayes was a consequence of the limited issue certified to it, not a limitation imposed by the state high court,” the jurist opined that “[p]re-force conduct should not be considered in isolation.”
He noted that the jury instructions properly “permitted the jury to focus on different aspects” of the circumstances surrounding the deputies’ treatment of the decedent for the excessive force and negligence claims.
Under those circumstances, he concluded:
“[T]he jury could have reasonably determined that Deputies Keeney and Gomez owed Niedzialek a duty of due care after restraining him in handcuffs and breached their duty of care by not placing him in a recovery position, failing to check whether he was breathing and had a pulse, or applying pressure on his back when it was no longer necessary. When faced with a claim of inconsistent jury verdicts, our task is to ‘search for a reasonable way to read the verdicts as expressing a coherent view of the case,’…and to uphold the judgment ‘if it is possible to reconcile the verdicts on any reasonable theory consistent with the evidence,’…Because it is possible to do so here, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendant’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.”
The case is Alves v. County of Riverside, 23-55532.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company