SAN DIEGO (CN) — An excessive force lawsuit brought by the family of a man fatally shot multiple times by a San Diego County Sheriff’s deputy in 2022 will move forward after a federal judge on Thursday denied key parts of the defense’s motion to dismiss the case.
On the morning of Feb. 19, 2022, multiple plainclothes and uniformed San Diego sheriff’s deputies surrounded an SUV parked at a strip mall in a strip mall in Otay Mesa, a neighborhood close to the U.S.-Mexico border, believing the vehicle was stolen — a point the family of Mizael Corrales have said was not the case.
The officers ordered Corrales’ two passengers to get out of the vehicle. One of the officers, Anthony Garcia, opened the driver's door and grabbed Corrales while the passengers were being arrested. Corrales then put the car in reverse, causing Garcia and another officer to fall.
As Corrales shifted the car into drive, Garcia stood up and without warning shot Corrales through the open window multiple times, killing him.
Corrales was unarmed.
In August 2023, Corrales’ family filed a lawsuit against Garcia, San Diego County, and a number of Doe defendants in the sheriff’s department claiming excessive force, wrongful death, denial of medical care, interference with familial relationship, and violation of the California Bane Civil Rights Act.
In a motion to dismiss the family’s claims, the defendants argued shooting Corrales was justified because he was an imminent threat to the lives of Garcia, other officers and bystanders. U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia, a Barack Obama appointee, ruled Thursday that at this stage in the litigation, "plaintiffs have set forth sufficient factual allegations that the lethal force used was objectively unreasonable."
Accompanying that, Battaglia denied the motion to dismiss the family’s claim that Garcia and San Diego County violated the California Bane Civil Rights Act, which allows them to bring a civil action for damages and injunctive relief if it’s determined their constitutional rights were interfered with by threats or coercion.
Battaglia also declined to dismiss the family’s claims on grounds of qualified immunity, the controversial legal principle that shields government officials from liability unless they violate laws deemed to be “clearly established” at the time.
“Here, the court has found plaintiffs have alleged plausible allegations sufficient to state a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. Therefore, it would be premature for the court to find that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage under the first prong of a qualified immunity analysis,” Battaglia wrote.
Battaglia did grant the defendants' motion to dismiss claims that they denied Corrales adequate medical care and that their actions interfered with familial relationships, since they failed to sufficiently allege that Garcia shot Corrales with purpose to harm him rather than for “legitimate law enforcement objectives.”
Battaglia dismissed the family’s claim that San Diego County should be liable for Corrales’ death because its policies or customs caused his death. He found the plaintiffs only showed a single incident in support of their argument — the death of Corrales.
Attorneys for both the Corrales family and San Diego County did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
GOP sues Nevada over late mail-in ballots May 3, 2024 -
