Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9367756
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
EDGAR IBARRA MENDOZA V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
No. 9367756 · Decided December 22, 2022
No. 9367756·Ninth Circuit · 2022·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
December 22, 2022
Citation
No. 9367756
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 22 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR IBARRA MENDOZA, an No. 21-56203
individual,
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-10561-PSG-Ex
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, JONATHAN
ROCHA, an individual, RODOLFO
LOPEZ, an individual, and DOES, 1-10,
inclusive
Defendant-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 6, 2022
Pasadena, CA
Before: BEA, IKUTA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Ibarra Mendoza appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment in favor of Los Angeles Police Department Officers Jonathan Rocha and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rodolfo Lopez (the Officers) in his civil rights action alleging violations of the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court
granted the Officers’ motion for summary judgment, and Ibarra Mendoza appealed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the order granting
summary judgment de novo. See Stephens v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 935 F.3d 852,
854 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm the district court.
The district court did not err in holding that the only alleged instance of
excessive force at issue is the Officers’ failure to remove Ibarra Mendoza from the
street. We do not consider whether any alleged pre-handcuffing uses of force were
excessive because Ibarra Mendoza does not challenge any such uses of force in his
opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam). The district court did not err in holding that Ibarra Mendoza forfeited his
claim that the Officers used excessive force by “beat[ing] him and threaten[ing] to
tase him after he was handcuffed,” because Ibarra Mendoza raised that claim for
the first time in his opposition to the summary judgment motion. See La
Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake Forest, 624 F.3d 1083,
1089 (9th Cir. 2010). We reject Ibarra Mendoza’s claim that the Officers left him
handcuffed in the street for “one to five minutes,” because it is contradicted by
surveillance footage that, while not showing the accident itself, plainly
2
demonstrates that only seconds elapsed between the handcuffing and the accident.
See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380–81 (2007).
Applying the factors set forth in Graham v. Connor, we conclude that the
Officers’ conduct was “‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and
circumstances confronting them.” 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). The type and amount
of force inflicted by the Officers’ inaction was minimal, and arguably was not
force at all, because “excessive force claims . . . require an affirmative act.”
Herrera v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 18 F.4th 1156, 1160 (9th Cir. 2021). Assessing
the facts known to the Officers at the time, “including the severity of the crime at
issue,” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, Ibarra Mendoza admitted that he had a loaded
firearm in his waistband, indicating that serious felonies had been committed.
Further, Ibarra Mendoza had “attempt[ed] to evade arrest by flight” before he was
handcuffed, Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 443 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc), and
such “flight impacts the calculus of whether [the Officers] acted reasonably,”
Seidner v. de Vries, 39 F.4th 591, 601 (9th Cir. 2022).
We also affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the
Officers on Ibarra Mendoza’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process
claim. Assuming the “deliberate indifference” standard applies here, see Porter v.
Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008), Ibarra Mendoza did not show that
3
the Officers subjectively intended to expose him to the risk of being run over while
handcuffed in the street. The Officers remained in the street with Ibarra Mendoza
until moments before the accident and had to jump out of the way to avoid being
hit themselves, and the entire incident indisputably occurred within a matter of
seconds.
AFFIRMED.
4
Plain English Summary
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
Key Points
01FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDGAR IBARRA MENDOZA, an No.
03MEMORANDUM* CITY OF LOS ANGELES, JONATHAN ROCHA, an individual, RODOLFO LOPEZ, an individual, and DOES, 1-10, inclusive Defendant-Appellees.
04Gutierrez, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 6, 2022 Pasadena, CA Before: BEA, IKUTA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Frequently Asked Questions
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for EDGAR IBARRA MENDOZA V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on December 22, 2022.
Use the citation No. 9367756 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.