[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Thank you. Sorry, thank you. Good morning. Lee Roystacker for the appellant, California Highway Patrol Officer Clayton Guillemin.

[00:00:10] Speaker 04:
I'm going to reserve three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:15] Speaker 04:
The district court erred in denying my client qualified immunity on Ms. Miller's Fourth Amendment failure to provide medical care claim and the 14th Amendment loss of familial association claim.

[00:00:29] Speaker 04:
My plan today is to spend most of my time on the Fourth Amendment medical care claim because there really is no debate about the absence of clearly established law establishing a spousal right to familial association. The court has said it three times.

[00:00:51] Speaker 04:
So unless the court has questions on the 14th Amendment claim, I'll turn to the Fourth Amendment claim. And I'm happy to address anything with respect to that that the court wants me to get to right out of the gate here.

[00:01:05] Speaker 04:
So the Fourth Amendment claim for failure to provide medical care fails both prongs of qualified immunities two-prong test.

[00:01:13] Speaker 04:
On the first prong, no plausible claim is alleged. And the obligation an officer has under this court's case law is to provide reasonable medical care. And It essentially is kind of been distilled into two things that an officer can do. One is to ensure medical care is provided by qualified people on the scene, or the other is to take them to the hospital. And the complaints allegations specifically allege that paramedics were on scene treating the deceased.

[00:01:52] Speaker 04:
Who called the paramedics?

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
I couldn't quite tell from reading the complaints. So...

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
Well, what happened is there were paramedics at the ski resort that, assuming, saw or heard what happened.

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
They just came over on their own?

[00:02:10] Speaker 04:
Yeah, and if, I mean, we submitted the videos where there's audio. I watched them. And you can hear them say, hey, you got one on standby, come over here.

[00:02:20] Speaker 04:
But then you also hear that they called, you know, they said, Something to the extent of, well, I can tell you exactly what they said. Yeah, I got medics coming. We got medics coming. So what happened is two sets of paramedics eventually arrived and provided medical care.

[00:02:38] Speaker 03:
And that satisfies the medics that first arrived on the scene.

[00:02:46] Speaker 03:
What kind of gear were they carrying?

[00:02:48] Speaker 04:
I don't know what kind of gear, but they're paramedics. So I would assume they had all the gear paramedics normally had.

[00:02:56] Speaker 03:
And again, to the extent they didn't, the fire department... Was there any, when the truck arrived, the backup, whoever they were, medics in the truck, did they have additional equipment?

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
I have to assume they did. I mean, they're paramedics and I'm sure you have to have certain things under California regulations in your vehicle to provide paramedic care.

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
As I understand her claim, it's that the officer didn't call for additional medical care. That's correct. That's what I think is alleged in the complaint. Yeah, that's correct.

[00:03:33] Speaker 00:
And your argument is that there's no clearly established law that once you call for baseline care, medical care that you have any further obligation.

[00:03:47] Speaker 04:
That's correct.

[00:03:49] Speaker 04:
And if you look at the – there is no clearly established law supporting that. No case has been cited by my opponent or the district court. But if you think about that, how that would operate, officers aren't medical professionals. They would have to be – they would have to say you're not providing enough care, I don't think, as a police officer, you as a paramedic, a medical professional, aren't doing enough, I'm taking this person and bringing them somewhere else.

[00:04:20] Speaker 04:
Not only is that illegal in California, but it doesn't make any real beneficial sense because... Let's kind of change the hypothetical.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
These guys are ski patrol people and they have a little backpack, you know, and in there you've got some band-aids, some sutures, things that you might have for people that have accidents on the ski resort and So they show up with their little backpack and the officer sees it and realizes they don't really have what you're talking about, like full-on medical paramedic equipment. Would the officer then have an obligation to do more?

[00:05:00] Speaker 04:
Well, I don't know because no case has addressed that. But what I will say in this case is that they already had let's call them regular for purposes of this discussion, to separate them from the ski patrol paramedics, although those paramedics may not like that, but the regular paramedics came too.

[00:05:22] Speaker 00:
And there's certainly no... That's your case. I was asking about a different case, obviously. At what point do you say, well, everybody agrees there's this reasonable obligation, and the question is, what is reasonable? And if all they show up with is a little kind of first aid backpack, would that be enough for an officer to say, okay, the ski patrol backpack arrived, I'm done, I'm out of here?

[00:05:53] Speaker 04:
Well, I mean, it's an interesting hypothetical, obviously. There could be an obligation to do more, I suppose, if the officer, certainly also depends on the type of injury.

[00:06:04] Speaker 04:
And maybe there's an obligation to do more if what, you're saying is, you know, they show up with just like a little fanny pack or whatever.

[00:06:14] Speaker 04:
But again, no court has said clearly that that's what an officer has to do.

[00:06:19] Speaker 00:
And then the other point I wanted to just ask you about, you said it's illegal under California law. It would have been illegal for them to have transported the individual.

[00:06:28] Speaker 04:
It's to interfere with a paramedic.

[00:06:30] Speaker 00:
I see. That's what you're referring.

[00:06:32] Speaker 04:
Yeah. It's penal code one 48 a one. Um, And if you think about, again, the reasoning behind that is you don't want people interfering with paramedics' provision of care, non-medical professionals making judgments on that.

[00:06:47] Speaker 03:
What was the time lapse between the shooting and the paramedics arriving on the scene?

[00:06:58] Speaker 04:
If I could clarify, which set?

[00:07:01] Speaker 04:
First. It was relatively quick. What was relatively quick? Three minutes, five minutes? Yeah, I think somewhere in that neighborhood.

[00:07:08] Speaker 00:
Well, here's the timeline, at least that I divined maybe from the record, is that there's noting that a shot occurred. That was at 946. Then we got medics coming at 948, and then the medics arrive at 953. So there is actual timeline here.

[00:07:27] Speaker 04:
The first set or the second? I think the first set arrived before the 953, but I could be mistaken. But there is a time lag. Obviously, there's a time lag in every case where paramedics are called and arrive. And it's certainly going to take this was a shooting and there was a knife present. So there's certainly the time needs to be taken by the officers to secure the scene. So paramedics can come in and provide care without risking injury.

[00:07:57] Speaker 03:
I gather that those first paramedics that arrived the first two or three.

[00:08:04] Speaker 03:
They tried to do, they tried to offer some assistance to him. Sure.

[00:08:08] Speaker 04:
And the officers were offering assistance before the paramedics got there as well.

[00:08:14] Speaker 03:
That's clear on the videos. And do we know when the truck arrived, if anything more was done?

[00:08:23] Speaker 04:
I don't know.

[00:08:25] Speaker 04:
We don't know that because we don't know what gear necessarily the ski patrol paramedics had.

[00:08:30] Speaker 03:
Right. Cause there's been no discovery in this case. Right. And I'm, And I'm assuming, you know, that's basically what the district court basically said. This is too early to decide all these questions.

[00:08:41] Speaker 04:
Yeah, it did. But it's certainly not too early to decide whether the law is clearly established under plaintiff's proposed rule. And no case supports plaintiff's proposed rule. It just doesn't exist. And no case holds spouses have 14th Amendment familiar association rights. So it.

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
There's no need for discovery when the facts as alleged establish the absence of clearly established law.

[00:09:11] Speaker 04:
And if you think it also and that defeats the purpose of qualified immunity, like if the law is not clearly established and the can is kicked down the road to allow discovery, it defeats the purpose of qualified immunity, protecting government officials from the burdens of litigation.

[00:09:34] Speaker 04:
And essentially that's our position on both those issues. If the court has any other questions.

[00:09:40] Speaker 02:
You want to reserve the balance?

[00:09:41] Speaker 04:
I'll reserve the balance. I think five minutes, 30 seconds.

[00:09:44] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:09:55] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
Good morning. May it please the court. My name is Sheila Mocini and I represent the appellees.

[00:10:09] Speaker 01:
So at this stage, the lower court accepted the complaints. Well-pleaded allegations is true. And those allegations were that Mr. Miller was shot, handcuffed and gravely wounded and not transported to a hospital.

[00:10:23] Speaker 01:
Also, that the appellees were intimately involved with Mr. Miller into his day-to-day life, bore a child with him and cared for him. about his safety, down to within the hour preceding him being shot. This question is not whether Appellee will ultimately prove the claims. The question here, I think, before the court is if the complaint plausibly alleged claims when allegations were accepted as true.

[00:10:50] Speaker 03:
The complaint makes considerable references to the video.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
It does, Your Honor. Yes.

[00:10:57] Speaker 03:
We've looked at it.

[00:10:58] Speaker 01:
Okay. The court has looked at the video?

[00:11:01] Speaker 03:
I have. Yes.

[00:11:02] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:11:03] Speaker 03:
And in that video, it shows the paramedics arriving within minutes after the shooting. I believe... As I understand the allegations in the complaint, it's that they need you to call for additional medical assistance. Is that right?

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor. I believe in the video it shows that ski patrol arrives on foot.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
Can't necessarily call and conclude that ski patrol... Paramedics were actual paramedics. They arrived on foot. There was no truck. I don't believe that the video actually shows a truck arriving, so I'm not sure where appellant is.

[00:11:46] Speaker 00:
I'm trying to understand the claim in that you said there's three things.

[00:11:52] Speaker 00:
There's a shooting, an individual down, there's some treatment, and ultimately the claim is that he wasn't taken to the hospital. Is that your view?

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
Not only that he wasn't taken to the hospital, that ski patrol does not necessarily rise to adequate medical care. I believe the test is if medical care was objectively reasonable. I think when ski patrol is arriving on foot, I believe, as the court said, where they might just have Band-Aids and not necessarily equipment, was it reasonable for an officer to sit back and not do anything at that point?

[00:12:27] Speaker 02:
Well, but it seems from the video that the officer said, I called paramedics.

[00:12:33] Speaker 02:
And so he called. What more should that officer have done?

[00:12:41] Speaker 01:
As far. Well, I believe that the officer should. You know, I don't.

[00:12:47] Speaker 01:
I don't know what time it said that he actually said he called some.

[00:12:50] Speaker 00:
Pretty soon.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
Pretty soon.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
When we were talking with the other council, the timeline is laid out there. It's quite quick. Right. Right. So it's not a question of timeliness, correct?

[00:13:06] Speaker 01:
Well, Mr. Miller was left on the ground for about 30 to 40 minutes until he passed and was pronounced dead via phone.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
You're going to have to break up these allegations. That doesn't necessarily relate to the officers calling the medics, being whether that was a reasonable execution of their duties. So you keep expanding it. Well, then he was left on the ground and then he wasn't taken to a hospital. But it seems to me that we're looking at the duty of the officer here.

[00:13:41] Speaker 01:
Right. Your Honor, I think it's disputed that the second the truck even ever arrived, as the video shows, it's only ski patrol on foot if the court is considering the video.

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
And I don't wish to engage in any kind of argument, but.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
there were additional paramedics that arrived on the scene and I'll let it go at that.

[00:14:04] Speaker 02:
And you're not disputing the authenticity of the video, are you?

[00:14:08] Speaker 01:
No, you're not.

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
Okay. And so I guess what's your best case supporting your position that Mr. Guillemin didn't provide an objectively reasonable medical care here? I'm trying to figure out what case you're relying on when It appears he called for help pretty quickly.

[00:14:33] Speaker 01:
I believe it's Tatum, Your Honor, that officers must necessarily seek necessary medical attention by either promptly summoning necessary medical help or taking the injured detainee to a hospital.

[00:14:48] Speaker 01:
Well, they did the first part.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
It's an or there.

[00:14:55] Speaker 01:
Right, Your Honors.

[00:14:57] Speaker 02:
And I thought in your brief you were arguing that this case is not one governed by Tatum and de Bronstein.

[00:15:03] Speaker 01:
So I was curious to see what your – My understanding is that I'm unable to really use de Bronstein, and I have to rely more on Tatum is my understanding.

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
But I don't know how Tatum is your best case.

[00:15:15] Speaker 01:
Well, it appears that Tatum sets the rule, but it doesn't actually resolve the case. The complaint alleges that just the adequate – the medical care was just not objectively reasonable post – arrest and medical care.

[00:15:32] Speaker 01:
And the inquiry for that is, my understanding is based on the totality of the circumstances.

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
There was restraint of Mr. Miller, there's no hospital transport, there's no adequate escalation, and there's death at the scene after substantial delay, about 40 minutes, 30 to 40 minutes.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
30 or 40 minutes before he dies, is that what you're saying? Yes, Your Honor. What does that mean?

[00:16:00] Speaker 01:
He was, Mr. Miller was left on the ground to die.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
Well, but paramedics were attending to him.

[00:16:09] Speaker 01:
Within that point, yes. I believe that they arrived sometime later. Well, it sounded like it's, I mean, within like eight minutes.

[00:16:16] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
And I'm confused. From 946 to 953. I believe. Now the pedemerics are here. They're taking care of him. And you're saying, well. But he's on the ground and then he dies, and you, in effect, impute that to the officers.

[00:16:34] Speaker 01:
But is the court referring to ski patrol or the actual EMS?

[00:16:38] Speaker 02:
There were a couple sets of what appeared to be paramedics, the first set and then the second set, which arrived shortly after the first one. So I'm not quite sure what more the officers – Could have done or should have done, and I'm looking to you to tell me which case would guide us here that would or would have informed the officer of what his duty and responsibility was beyond what he already did.

[00:17:07] Speaker 01:
There's no case of here's directly on point other than, you know, DeBronstein was decided after. But, you know, appellees contend that.

[00:17:18] Speaker 01:
officers should still have seen that Mr. Miller was transported to the hospital that was about 11 miles away.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
You know, it seems to me that the standard you're imposing is that the officers have to interrogate the medics or whoever arrives with respect to their qualifications and what equipment they have and that sort of thing. And we don't have any case that would require that.

[00:17:42] Speaker 01:
And I don't believe that's the inquiry, Your Honor, that there needs to be – an intensive inquiry into qualifications, I believe it's just what's reasonable under the circumstances, just adequate medical care is being given.

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
I don't think de Bronstein really adds anything. I mean, of course, it's a case, what, a year or so after the events. But it really kind of reiterates the basic reasonableness standard, and it doesn't provide any further degree of specificity for us to judge by. So if we leave de Bronstein to the side and just take our general view, having to provide reasonable medical care, where did they go wrong?

[00:18:25] Speaker 01:
I believe the officer still went wrong by not seeing that he was transported.

[00:18:31] Speaker 02:
And that also depends, too, on, you know, just so he should have interfered with the people who were trying to give him medical care and taken him from them.

[00:18:42] Speaker 01:
And taken him somewhere else? I believe that he should have seen that he was actually transported to a hospital that was 11 miles away.

[00:18:48] Speaker 03:
He should have told the paramedics. There was a truck that came. So you're saying that he should have told the paramedics, take this guy to the hospital.

[00:18:57] Speaker 01:
He should have still overseen and see that Mr. Miller got adequate medical care.

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
So what you're saying is the arrival of adequate medical care wouldn't be sufficient. He has to oversee it to the end.

[00:19:13] Speaker 01:
I don't believe he has to oversee it to the end, but see that he's transported. I think once he's being transported, potentially.

[00:19:22] Speaker 00:
Why shouldn't he jump in the car with him in the ambulance and make sure that the medic is providing appropriate care? I think that might go beyond reasonable jumping in the car, Your Honor. Well, do you have a case that would say that?

[00:19:37] Speaker 01:
Not jumping in the car.

[00:19:38] Speaker 00:
Do you have a case that would say he should have demanded transport or separately called again for some kind of ambulance. I do not have a case for that.

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
I mean, doesn't that kind of sink your case? I mean, it's a very sad situation here, but you can't really impugn duties to the officer that the court has not yet specified in a case. So that's what we're struggling with, and you can see that. I understand, Your Honor.

[00:20:06] Speaker 01:
And we still believe that that relies on disputed facts that can't be resolved in this motion.

[00:20:13] Speaker 01:
Because, you know, Appelli is seeking for and has sought to go outside of the record to look at a single video to resolve facts in their favor. And there's still discovery that's needed on this case.

[00:20:27] Speaker 01:
This is an emotion for summary judgment.

[00:20:29] Speaker 00:
Okay, so just hypothetically, if you're now back in the trial court, we have the video. The video is the video. So that's evidence. What is the discovery to the officer? What do you? need to know in your view that would relate to these disputed facts?

[00:20:50] Speaker 01:
I would like a full deposition. The deposition that was the statement that was given is a few pages in length. It's missing a lot of questions that I would ask the officer.

[00:21:00] Speaker 00:
I'm asking you what not the deposition is or the statement is too short. I'd like a big deposition. It's what discovery specifically would you ask the officer?

[00:21:13] Speaker 00:
that you think would resolve these disputed issues?

[00:21:17] Speaker 01:
I would ask him what care he actually provided, if he knew if there was transport capability by ski patrol. I would ask him step-by-step what he did.

[00:21:32] Speaker 01:
Everything that he did is what I would ask him, step-by-step. And I think that that could resolve that question. All right.

[00:21:43] Speaker 01:
So regarding qualified immunity, qualified immunity, there's key unresolved questions with qualified immunity.

[00:21:52] Speaker 01:
And that, I believe, needs to be – that more discovery is needed on that. It can't be decided on a 12B6 motion.

[00:22:03] Speaker 01:
Regarding the videos, again, we would dispute because the appellee – appellant is arguing that – to use the videos to draw contested inferences against appellee, which is not how the law is supposed to work. And the court should not be using them to decide medical adequacy or to resolve dispute of reasonableness questions on the video.

[00:22:29] Speaker 01:
Regarding the familial association claim, the court allowed that to proceed because the court made the finding that Ms. Appellee was intimately involved day to day with Mr. Miller's life. She lived with him, she bore a child with him, and she looked out for his safety down to within the hour that he was killed, shot and killed.

[00:22:57] Speaker 01:
So in conclusion, the case should proceed because the complaint plausibly alleges that Officer Guellman failed to take objectively reasonable steps to secure timely and adequate medical care for Mr. Miller, who was gravely wounded.

[00:23:10] Speaker 01:
The court should also allow the loss of familial association claim to proceed because Appelli's relationship went far beyond a regular spousal relationship. She was intimately involved with Mr. Miller. Appellant's contrary argument depends on disputed facts and defense favorable inferences about what a single video shows, whether medical care was adequate, and whether further action was required. Those questions belong after discovery, not on a 12B6 appeal. If the court should remand for dismissal, Appellee would request that dismissal be without prejudice or with leave to amend.

[00:23:44] Speaker 01:
Submit.

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
Thank you. Thank you.

[00:23:47] Speaker 04:
Unless the court has further questions of me, I'm prepared to submit.

[00:23:57] Speaker 02:
What would be, I guess, the remaining claims? Let's say if the outcome was in your client's favor, what claims will remain before the district court?

[00:24:06] Speaker 04:
Against, with respect to my client, because there's Many defendants.

[00:24:12] Speaker 04:
Again, my client wasn't the officer that did the shooting, so all those shooting-related claims exist against a state parks officer. There is still a potentially viable excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment against my officer, and then there are state law claims.

[00:24:33] Speaker 02:
Thank you. I have no other questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:24:39] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much, both of you, for your argument presentations. The case of N.M. versus Gilliman is now submitted.