Monday, August 10, 2026
Page 3
Ninth Circuit:
Level of Care for Gunshot Victim Is Not Clearly Established
Opinion Says Judge Erred in Denying Immunity to Officer Over ‘Failure’ to Seek Extra Aid for Dying Man Who Was Being Treated by Paramedics After State Parks Employee Allegedly Shot Him in Back
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Friday that a District Court judge erred in denying qualified immunity to an officer accused of violating a decedent’s constitutional rights by not seeking additional medical care after the paramedics arrived to offer treatment to a dying man who was purportedly shot in the back by another member of the law enforcement community.
Friday’s memorandum opinion, signed by Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia and Senior Circuit Judges M. Margaret McKeown and Richard A. Paez, highlights that qualified immunity shields a peace officer from personal liability for claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. §1983 unless the conduct violates a plaintiff’s constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the incident.
They acknowledged that officers are compelled under the Fourth Amendment to seek objectively reasonable medical care for seriously injured suspects but declared:
“[T]here was no clearly established precedent that officers were constitutionally required to summon additional medical assistance beyond paramedics or to otherwise transport an injured arrestee to the hospital once paramedics arrived at the scene and began providing care.”
Murguia, McKeown, and Paez also took issue with the trial judge’s denial of the officer’s motion to dismiss an interference-with-familial-association claim asserted by the decedent’s wife, where the “[p]laintiff expressly conceded her Fourteenth Amendment claim…in her briefing before the district court.”
Vehicle Theft
Appealing both denials was California Highway Patrol Officer Clayton Guillemin, who responded to a call reporting the theft of a white Ford F-150 truck from the Palisades Tahoe resort in Placer County on Jan. 26, 2024. Around the same time, Vinton Miller’s wife, Stacie Miller, called 911 to report that her husband, who worked at the facility and suffered from schizophrenia, had told her that he was fleeing from someone who was trying to kill him.
While Guillemin was discussing the call with State Parks Officer Matthew Yarbrough, a vehicle matching the description drove by at a high rate of speed. Yarbrough followed in his purportedly all-white patrol car, allegedly failing to activate his emergency lights, and eventually crashed into the side of the truck.
After the crash, Vinton Miller approached Yarbrough, who said that the suspect was carrying a knife in his right hand, before turning around to flee. Yarbrough allegedly shot the suspect in the back after calls to “drop the knife” were reportedly ignored.
Guillemin arrived at the scene and helped secure Vinton Miller in handcuffs before Palisades Tahoe ski patrol paramedics began rendering aid. He was purportedly pronounced dead at the scene approximately 30 to 40 minutes later.
Complaint Filed
In May 2025, Stacie Miller, on behalf of herself and her minor child, filed a complaint asserting constitutional claims under §1983 as well as state law causes of action against Guillemin, Yarbrough, the California Highway Patrol, the California State Parks, and others.
Guillemin moved to dismiss the claims against him based on Rule 12(b)(6). In August 2025, Senior District Court Judge William B. Shubb granted the request only as to an excessive force claim, pointing out that there was no allegation that Guillemin fired shots during the incident.
As to the assertion that the officers denied the decedent medical care in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the jurist opined:
“[T]he complaint states that…neither officer ‘called dispatch for additional medical aid.’…Because neither officer ‘summoned medical help or took the injured arrestee to a hospital,’ plaintiff states a claim…against Yarbrough and Guillemin.”
Adding that “the court declines to address whether qualified immunity shields any defendants from liability” at the pleading stage, Shubb denied “defendant[’s] motion[] to dismiss for qualified immunity at this stage of the proceeding.”
Qualified Immunity
Murguia, McKeown, and Paez said:
“With respect to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim, we conclude that Guillemin is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Miller’s clearly established rights. For the unlawfulness of an officer’s conduct to be ‘clearly established,’ it must be the case that, ‘at the time of the officer’s conduct, the law was “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would understand that what he [wa]s doing” [wa]s unlawful.’ ”
They recognized that it was clearly established in January 2024 that an officer must seek objectively reasonable medical care for a critically injured suspect and that, “[g]iven the significance of Miller’s injuries—namely, a gunshot wound to the back—Miller faced” a significant risk of serious harm if aid was not rendered. However, they opined:
“Plaintiff alleges…that paramedics were summoned ‘shortly after’ the shooting, and the videos incorporated into the complaint confirm that paramedics were summoned within two minutes. Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true and construing them in the light most favorable to her,….Guillemin is entitled to qualified immunity.”
The panel declared:
“On remand, the district court is directed to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and [related] Bane Act claims against Guillemin.”
The case is N.M. v. Guillemin, 25-5890.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company