Estate of Saul Cerros v. United States of America

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, Senior United States District Judge for the**
District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESTATE OF SAUL CERROS; DINAH
CERROS; SAUL CERROS, minor by and
through his guardian ad litem, Dinah
Cerros; ALICIA CERROS, minor by and
through her guardian ad litem, Dinah
Cerros; LUCILIA CERROS; BAUDELIO
CERROS; VINCE CATANHO,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-55819
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02496-CAS-JTL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge.**
FILED
OCT 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s adverse judgment, following a
bench trial, in their tort action arising from the fatal shooting of Saul Cerros and
wounding of Vincent Catanho by a federal law enforcement officer. The district
court rejected plaintiffs’ claims after finding that the officer did not use excessive
force. We affirm.
Plaintiffs’ contention that the district court erred by applying California’s
general self-defense standard, rather than the special law enforcement standard, is
without merit because the general standard was more favorable to the plaintiffs.
See Munoz v. City of Union City, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 521, 539-40 (Ct. App. 2004).
They thus have no basis to complain.
There was no error in the district court’s finding that the defendant used
reasonable force. To satisfy the clear error standard, “a reviewing court must ask
whether, on the entire evidence, it is left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs contend that the only account of
events consistent with the physical evidence was their own account, presented by
Catanho in his deposition. Plaintiffs overstate the strength of the factual record.
Although some facts could be established with certainty, much of the expert
forensic testimony for both parties was just hypothesis. The case turned

-- 2 of 3 --

3
substantially on witness credibility, and there is no evidence that shows the district
court’s finding in defendant’s favor was unjustified.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --