Ninth Circuit Upholds Jury Verdict Regarding Negligence in Police Restraint Death Case Even When No Excessive Force Was Used

05.02.2025

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a jury verdict against the County of Riverside in Alves v. County of Riverside (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2025, No. 23-55532). The opinion held that California state law negligence claims arising from police use of force are not legally equivalent to federal constitutional claims under the Fourth Amendment, and that public entities can face substantial exposure even where no “excessive force” is found.

The appeal and underlying case arose from the July 2019 death of Kevin Niedzialek, who was experiencing a mental health crisis when Riverside County Sheriff’s deputies encountered him. Niedzialek was bleeding from the head prior to coming in contact with the deputies, causing the deputies to immediately request medical assistance. During the encounter, deputies deployed a taser twice and placed him in handcuffs while he lay face-down. One of the deputies placed his right knee on the left side of Niedzialek’s back while the other deputy attempted to gain control of Niedzialek’s left wrist. After struggling for approximately 35 seconds, the deputies were able to handcuff Niedzialek. The deputies requested paramedics for a second time after he was handcuffed. However, approximately 45 seconds after Niedzialek was handcuffed, his movements stopped and he began to make “grunting” or “moaning” noises. At this point, a deputy removed his knee from Niedzialek’s back, while the other deputy kept her right hand on his back.

Approximately two and a half minutes later, a deputy asked Niedzialek for his name and he did not respond. Another minute and twenty seconds elapsed before one of the deputies noticed that Niedzialek might not be breathing, causing the deputies to roll Niedzialek onto his back (after a total of over four minutes had elapsed since Niedzialek had not moved). Paramedics arrived approximately 2 minutes after Niedzialek was rolled on his back, determined that he was not breathing, and instructed the deputies to begin CPR on Niedzialek. Niedzialek was transported to the hospital and he was pronounced dead the next day.

The decedent’s successor-in-interest filed suit, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California state law. A federal jury rejected the excessive force and battery claims but found the deputies negligent under California law. The court reduced a $7.5 million jury award by 80% due to comparative fault and entered judgment for $1.5 million. The County appealed, arguing the verdicts were inconsistent and that the negligence finding could not stand without a finding of excessive force.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed. Writing for the panel, the Hon. Gabriel Sanchez held that the jury’s mixed verdict was legally consistent because California’s “reasonable care” negligence standard is broader and distinct from the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” test for excessive force. In doing so, the court reaffirmed the California Supreme Court’s reasoning in Hayes v. County of San Diego (57 Cal. 4th 622 (2013)), which recognized that state tort claims allow juries to consider a broader spectrum of officer conduct, including post-restraint monitoring and medical intervention, in assessing reasonableness.

The Court noted that while the jury may have concluded the deputies did not use excessive force in initially subduing Niedzialek, it could also reasonably find they breached their duty of care by failing to monitor his condition, reposition him for breathing, or render aid when he became unresponsive.

This decision has broad potential for best practices and training for California law enforcement agencies and law enforcement personnel, especially as it relates to use of restraining techniques, restraint devices, and post-restraint medical care.

If your agency requires counsel on how to respond to this ruling, or if you have any questions about this Alert, please contact your AALRR attorney or the authors of this Alert.