Antezana
Antezana v. Richardson
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Plaintiffs Javier Antezana, his brother Carlos, and their friend Nestor Zamora sued San Francisco Police Officers Richardson and Diggs and the City of San Francisco (“the city”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . They alleged that they were illegally arrested after the officers entered Carlos Antezana’s house in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the defendants subjected them to excessive force incident to the arrest. 1 The defendants appeal the district court’s denial of their motions for partial summary judgment. We review de novo the denial of summary judgment in a qualified immunity action. Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 516 , 114 S.Ct. 1019 , 127 L.Ed.2d 344 (1994). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.
The district court erred in finding that there were triable issues of fact as to the officers’ entry of Carlos Antezana’s home. Under the undisputed facts, giving all favorable inferences to the plaintiffs, Officers Richardson and Diggs were responding to an anonymous 911 call that reported a fight involving 20 to 25 people at a house. Richardson and Diggs entered the house after hearing noises upon their arrival that appeared to…