FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 11 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUADALUPE GUERRERO, individually No. 16-16877
as the surviving mother of deceased
Carlos Lamadrid, D.C. No. 4:12-cv-00370-JAS
Plaintiff-Appellant,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 7, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: M. SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and MCAULIFFE,*** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Steven J. McAuliffe, United States District Judge for
the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.
Guadalupe Guerrero appeals the district court’s order entering judgment in
favor of the United States on her wrongful death suit pursuant to the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The district court did not err in holding that a justification defense is
available to Tidwell under Arizona law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-405(A), because the
statute does not make an exception for a person who accidentally injures a third
party while justifiably using force. Although the justification defense is
unavailable in the criminal context if a person recklessly injures or kills an
innocent third party, id. § 13-401, this exception to the justification defense is not
applicable in the civil context. Even if it were applicable here, the exception would
not help Guerrero because the district court did not clearly err in finding that
LaMadrid was not an “innocent third person,” and that Tidwell’s actions were not
“reckless.”
The district court’s conclusion that Tidwell was justified in using deadly
physical force in this case is amply supported by the record. The district court did
not clearly err in crediting the testimony of Officer Marcus Gonzalez over the
testimony of bystanders, see United States v. Nelson, 137 F.3d 1094, 1110 (9th Cir.
1998), and therefore did not clearly err in finding that an individual was hurling
rocks the size of “softballs” and one the size of a “brick” at approximately 50 to 60
2
miles per hour directly at Agent Tidwell, one of which narrowly missed his head.
Even Guerrero’s own expert concluded that the situation Tidwell faced was life-
threatening. Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that a
reasonable person in Tidwell’s position would believe that “deadly physical force
[was] immediately necessary to protect himself” against a third party’s use of
“unlawful deadly physical force.” See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-405(A).
We also reject Guerrero’s claim that Tidwell may not use a justification
defense because he negligently put himself in a situation where he had to use
deadly force. Guerrero does not assert that Tidwell provoked the rock-thrower’s
use of force, see id. § 13-404(B), and does not point to any other statute or case
under Arizona law making the justification defense unavailable to a person who
has negligently stepped into harm’s way.
Finally, Guerrero presented no plausible evidence that various federal, state,
and local agencies conspired to conceal evidence, and therefore the district court
did not err in rejecting Guerrero’s spoliation claim. See Akiona v. United States,
938 F.2d 158, 161 (9th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.
3