Case Explained: N. M., ET AL. V. GUILLEMIN, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-07 Docket: 2:25-cv-01389-WBS-JDP The ninth-circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for California Highway Patrol Officer Clayton Guillemin and directed the dismissal of all claims against him in this § 1983 action arising from the death of Vinton Miller. The court held that while officers must provide objectively reasonable medical care to detainees facing substantial risks of serious harm, the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident requiring officers to summon additional medical assistance beyond paramedics or transport an arrestee once paramedics arrived and began providing care. Because paramedics were summoned within two minutes of the shooting, Guillemin did not violate Miller’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court abused its discretion by failing to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim for loss of familial association, as the Plaintiff had expressly conceded this claim in her briefing before the district court. Consequently, the court also reversed the denial of dismissal for the Bane Act claim, noting that such a claim requires proof of an underlying constitutional violation which was absent due to the withdrawal of the Fourteenth Amendment claim. On remand, the district court is instructed to dismiss the Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Bane Act claims against Guillemin. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.