The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision in the case of Lewis v. City of Manhattan Beach, No. 25-2291. The court affirmed the dismissal of a judicial deception claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a state law false imprisonment claim. This ruling affects the plaintiffs, Mary Lewis and David Eugene Lewis, who alleged wrongful actions by the police and city officials.

The case centers around the Lewis family, who claimed that police officers from the City of Manhattan Beach engaged in judicial deception when obtaining a search warrant for their home. They argued that the officers provided false information that led to the warrant's issuance. The case began in the Central District of California, where the plaintiffs sought to hold the city and its officers accountable for their actions.

The dispute arose after the police conducted a search of the Lewis home based on an affidavit that the plaintiffs contended was misleading. The Lewis family alleged that inaccuracies in the affidavit constituted judicial deception, which violated their rights. The case was filed in November 2023, and the district court dismissed the claims, prompting the appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

The court ruled on the appeal in November 2026, affirming the lower court's decision. The panel, which included Circuit Judges R. Nelson and H.A. Thomas, along with District Judge P. Casey Pitts, found that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of judicial deception. The court stated, "To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff alleging judicial deception must make a substantial showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for truth and establish that, but for the dishonesty, the challenged action would not have occurred."

The court noted that even if the alleged inaccuracies in Detective Shawn Thompson's statement were considered, they did not materially affect the issuance of the search warrant. The ruling highlighted that the affidavit still contained enough factual information for a neutral magistrate to find probable cause for the search. The court referenced a previous case, stating, "Even if Carrillo’s inconsistent testimony is redacted and the timestamp from the security footage is included, the affidavit still describes the minor victim noticing a man covertly recording him." This detail, along with others, was deemed sufficient to justify the warrant.

As a result, the court concluded that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, which included the City of Manhattan Beach and several police officers. The ruling also addressed the plaintiffs' state law false imprisonment claim, which was dismissed without prejudice. The court stated that the district court had the authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

The impact of this ruling is significant for similar civil rights cases. It reaffirms the standards required to prove judicial deception and highlights the importance of probable cause in warrant issuance. This decision may influence how future claims of police misconduct and judicial deception are litigated, as it sets a precedent for the level of evidence needed to support such claims.

Looking ahead, the plaintiffs may consider their options for further legal action, including the possibility of appealing the decision or pursuing their state law claims in a different context. However, details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or future steps the plaintiffs might take.