BOWELS

dissenting:

Joseph Bowles (“Bowles”) was shot and killed by California Highway Patrol Officer Chris McGuire (“Officer McGuire”) in the early morning hours of October 20, 2009. The shooting came at the culmination of a chase that began after Officer McGuire observed Bowles “looking into vehicles, placing his hands kind of over his eyes to, to allow him to look inside of the vehicles[J” ER 426. Although Officer McGuire did not see Bowles make any contact with any of those vehicles with his hands, Officer McGuire testified that he “just had reasonable suspicion that he was attempting to commit a crime based on the several minutes of surveillance we had with him up to that point[.]” ER 426-27. After Officer McGuire’s colleague, Officer McCord, approached Bowles and identified himself as a police officer, Bowles ran and the chase began with Officers MeGuire and McCord in pursuit. ER 369-60. Officer McCord eventually dropped back and did not witness Office McGuire fire the shot that killed Bowles.

These events were ultimately followed by a complaint filed by Bowles’s parents, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , alleging, inter alia, that the use of deadly force against their son…

MEMORANDUM **

This case arises out of a tragic mistake. Joseph Bowles (“Bowles”) was shot and killed by California Highway Patrol Officer Chris McGuire (“McGuire”) when, while being pursued on foot, Bowles pivoted and allegedly pointed a metallic object at McGuire. The officer fired a single shot that killed Bowles. Bowles’ parents, Cynthia Bowles and Antonio Sousa (“Plaintiffs”), filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an unreasonable search and seizure, excessive force, and other claims. The district court granted *539 summary judgment to Officer McGuire and the other defendants on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that McGuire’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm because the totality of the circumstances confirms that McGuire reasonably feared that Bowles was about to shoot him. 1

We review “de novo a grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity,” and in “determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, [view] the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Garcia v. Cnty. of Merced, 639 F.3d 1206, 1208 (9th Cir.2011); see also Elder v. Holloway, 510…

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED

MAY 01 2014

CYNTHIA BOWLES and ANTONIO No. 12-16467

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

SOUSA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00937-LJO-GSA Plaintiffs - Appellants, Eastern District of California, Fresno v.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE; et al., ORDER

Defendants - Appellees.

Before: CALLAHAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District Judge.*

The dissent filed on April 24, 2014, is hereby amended.

* The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 24 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CYNTHIA BOWLES and ANTONIO No. 12-16467

SOUSA,

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00937-LJO-GSA Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CITY OF PORTERVILLE; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal…