BLANKENSHIP v. MCDEVITT (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Laura Blankenship and Lamont Mandarino (“Appellants”), as personal representatives and legal heirs to the estate of Alexander L. Mandarino (“Mandarino”), appeal the district court’s award of summary judgment to Todd McDevitt, Adam Durflinger, and the Shoshone County Sheriff’s Office on Appellants’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. The district court did not err in determining that Mandarino’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force was not violated. We conclude that the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable for the reasons stated by the district court in its Memorandum Decision and Order.¹

2. The district court also did not err in granting summary judgment to McDevitt and Durflinger based on qualified immunity. Because no constitutional violation occurred, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. See Aguilera v. Baca, 510 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 2007) (“If we determine ․ that no constitutional violation occurred, the qualified immunity inquiry is at an end.”).

3. Finally, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Sheriff’s Office. Because no constitutional violation occurred, the Sheriff’s Office “cannot be held liable and whether ‘the departmental regulations might have authorized the use of constitutionally excessive force is quite beside the point.’ ” Long v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901, 907 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 106 S.Ct. 1571, 89 L.Ed.2d 806 (1986) ).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On appeal, Appellants conceded that the deadly force used in the last 15 seconds of the encounter was objectively reasonable. But even in the absence of that concession, the claim fails for the reasons stated by the district court.