Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
City of Los Angeles, California, et al. v. Estate of Daniel Hernandez, By and Through Successors in Interest, Manuel Hernandez, Maria Hernandez, and M. L. H., et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 21-55994, 21-55995 · judgment June 2, 2025
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
This case arises from a split-second police encounter in which an officer fired six shots in six seconds at a suspect armed with a knife who appeared to be regaining his footing to continue his advance. The Ninth Circuit, relying on slow-motion parsing of body-camera footage, deemed the first four shots constitutionally reasonable but held the last two – fired no more than one second thereafter – to constitute excessive force, despite this Court’s repeated admonitions against such artificial segmentation of fastmoving events. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit not only fractured established Fourth Amendment precedent, but also expanded its own “moment-of-threat” jurisprudence in direct conflict with this Court’s recent and unanimous rejection of that approach. Petitioners respectfully submit the following questions presented:
-
Whether the Ninth Circuit disregarded this Court’s precedents, including Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), and Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), by artificially parsing a six-second event into discrete segments, finding the first four shots reasonable, but the final two unconstitutional based on a split-second gap and slow-motion video review. An approach that also conflicts with other circuits considering similar facts.
-
Whether the Ninth Circuit effectively adopted a new and more extreme “moment-of-threat” rule that this Court unanimously rejected in Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. 73, 145 S. Ct. 1353 (2025).
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Kevin E. Gilbert
Orbach Huff + Henderson
For respondent
Erwin Chemerinsky
Proceedings
- Jun 22 2026Petition DENIED. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.
- Jun 15 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/18/2026.
- Jun 08 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2026.
- Jun 01 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/4/2026.
- May 26 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/28/2026.
- May 18 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/21/2026.
- May 11 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/14/2026.
- Apr 27 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/1/2026.
- Apr 20 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/24/2026.
- Apr 13 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2026.
- Mar 30 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/2/2026.
- Mar 23 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2026.
- Feb 25 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2026.
- Feb 05 2026Brief of respondents Estate of Daniel Hernandez, et al. in opposition filed.
- Dec 17 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 9, 2026.
- Dec 16 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 8, 2026 to February 9, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 09 2025Response Requested. (Due January 8, 2026)
- Dec 03 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
- Dec 03 2025Brief amicus curiae of National Police Association filed.
- Dec 01 2025Waiver of right of respondent Estate of Daniel Hernandez, et al. to respond filed.
- Oct 30 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 3, 2025)
- Aug 11 2025Application (25A167) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until October 30, 2025.
- Aug 05 2025Application (25A167) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 31, 2025 to October 30, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.