Nguyen v. City of Garden Grove

── Nguyen v. City of Garden Grove ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AARON NGUYEN; NGOC LE THI No. 24-189 PHAN; HOANG MINH NGUYEN, D.C. No. 8:21-cv-01775-JVS-ADS Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF GARDEN GROVE; MARK LORD; MICHAEL REYNOLDS; MIKE MARTIN, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 9, 2025 Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON, MILLER, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges; Dissent by Judge Rawlinson. Aaron Nguyen (“Aaron”) and his parents Ngoc Le Thi Phan and Hoang Minh Nguyen (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants Detectives Mark Lord, Michael Reynolds, and Sergeant Mike * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Martin (collectively, “the Officers”) and the City of Garden Grove (“City”) (collectively, “Defendants”) on the Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims arising out of Aaron’s now-reversed criminal conviction and incarceration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (citation omitted). There is a genuine dispute of material fact if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 1. The district court correctly determined that Plaintiffs do not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to their Brady claim because they have not shown that the evidence at issue was withheld. Cunningham v. Wong, 704 F.3d 1143, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2013). The City turned over all investigative material to Aaron’s criminal defense attorney before trial, and many of the assertions made by Plaintiffs were known by Aaron himself as early as the day of the interviews. “If the defendant is aware of the essential facts enabling him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence, the government’s failure to bring the evidence to the direct attention of the defense does not constitute suppression.” Cunningham, 704 F.3d at 1154 (citation modified). 2. Plaintiffs raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to their deliberate fabrication claim but only as to Detective Lord. “[T]here is a clearly established 2 24-189 constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government.” Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1074–75. Deliberate fabrication can be shown by “direct evidence, for example, when an interviewer deliberately . . . mischaracterizes witness statements in [an] investigative report.” Spencer v. Peters, 857 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation modified). It can also be shown by “circumstantial evidence,” id., including evidence that officers “used investigative techniques that were so coercive and abusive that they knew or should have known that those techniques would yield false information,” Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1076. A reasonable jury viewing Detective Lord’s police report could find that he deliberately fabricated evi