The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, granting him qualified immunity in a case involving allegations of excessive force during a protest. The decision, issued on October 21, 2026, affects not only Villanueva but also the broader context of law enforcement accountability and the rights of protesters.
The case, Astorga v. Villanueva (Docket No. 24-4061), stems from a protest that took place in Southern Los Angeles in 2020. During this protest, plaintiffs Christina Astorga and Hugo Padilla, along with other individuals, alleged that they were injured when deputies from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department used less-lethal munitions to disperse the crowd after declaring the gathering an unlawful assembly. Villanueva was not present at the protest, but the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against him under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Astorga and Padilla, acting as class representatives, argued that Villanueva should be held responsible for the actions of his deputies. They contended that he had a supervisory role and should have ensured that his officers adhered to constitutional standards during crowd control operations. The case reached the Ninth Circuit after the district court denied Villanueva's motion for summary judgment, in which he asserted that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not directly participate in the deputies' actions.
The Ninth Circuit, composed of Circuit Judges R. Nelson and Desai, along with District Judge Karen E. Schreier, reviewed the case. The court's opinion emphasized that qualified immunity protects government officials from liability unless they violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. The court stated, “A constitutional right is ‘clearly established’ if every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right at the time of his conduct.”
In its ruling, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Villanueva's conduct was unlawful under clearly established law. The court noted that the cases cited by the plaintiffs did not directly address supervisory conduct. For instance, in the case of Nelson v. City of Davis, the court dealt solely with the actions of frontline officers, not their supervisors. Similarly, in Deorle v. Rutherford, the focus was on the use of force by officers rather than the supervisory role of a police chief or sheriff.
The court specifically pointed out that in Larez v. City of Los Angeles, the police chief had condoned excessive force by his officers, which was not the case with Villanueva. The court stated, “But Sheriff Villanueva took no affirmative action to condone, ratify, or encourage his deputies’ actions after they occurred.” This distinction was crucial in the court's decision to reverse the lower court's ruling.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that because the plaintiffs could not establish that Villanueva's supervisory conduct violated clearly established law, he was entitled to qualified immunity. The ruling effectively shields him from liability in this case, allowing him to avoid the consequences of the allegations made against him and his department.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond just Sheriff Villanueva. It raises important questions about the accountability of law enforcement supervisors in situations involving the use of force. The decision may set a precedent for future cases where plaintiffs seek to hold supervisors liable for the actions of their subordinates. The court's emphasis on the need for a “particularized showing” that clearly established law prohibited a supervisor's actions suggests that plaintiffs may face significant challenges in similar cases moving forward.
As for what lies ahead, it is unclear whether the plaintiffs will seek to appeal this decision. The court's ruling grants Villanueva qualified immunity, but it does not prevent the plaintiffs from pursuing other legal avenues against the deputies involved in the incident. There may also be related cases pending that address similar issues of excessive force and accountability in law enforcement.