Ciria v. Gerrans

── Ciria v. Gerrans ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOAQUIN CIRIA, No. 24-3308 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 4:22-cv-07510- KAW v. ARTHUR GERRANS; JAMES OPINION CROWLEY, Defendants - Appellants, and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, NICOLAS RUBINO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 8, 2025 San Francisco, California 2 CIRIA V. GERRANS Filed June 5, 2026 Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Richard A. Paez, and Eric D. Miller, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Paez; Dissent by Judge Miller SUMMARY * Qualified Immunity In an interlocutory appeal, the panel affirmed the district court’s order denying qualified immunity to San Francisco Police Department Inspectors James Crowley and Arthur Gerrans (“Defendants”) on Joaquin Ciria’s fabrication-of- evidence and malicious prosecution claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ciria was exonerated after serving thirty-two years in prison for the 1990 murder of Felix Bastarrica. The San Francisco District Attorney’s Innocence Commission found that his conviction could not stand and that he was factually innocent. According to the Commission’s investigation, George Varela, the star witness at Ciria’s criminal trial, had falsely named Ciria as the shooter and was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. In his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Ciria alleged in part that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to or reckless disregard of his right * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  CIRIA V. GERRANS 3 not to be criminally charged based on fabricated evidence and maliciously prosecuted him. Addressing the fabrication-of-evidence claim, the panel held under this court’s precedents and based on the assumed facts, a reasonable jury could find that Defendants (1) were deliberately indifferent or exhibited reckless disregard towards Ciria’s right not to be charged based on fabricated evidence, (2) fabricated evidence against Ciria by using interrogation tactics including threatening Varela with an adult murder charge and offering him a story that exculpated him to get him to name Ciria as the shooter, and (3) knew or should have known Varela was not telling the truth. The panel held that it was clearly established at the time of the investigation in 1990 that Defendants’ conduct would violate Ciria’s due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government. Further, any reasonable officer would know that threatening a young witness and offering him a story that insulates him from liability to get him to falsely implicate a suspect violates the accused suspect’s due process rights. The panel next held that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on Ciria’s malicious prosecution claim at this stage. Considering all of the surrounding circumstances, and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Ciria, it is not reasonably arguable that the officers had probable cause to arrest Ciria and charge him with murder. The state of the law in 1990 gave Defendants fair warning that they lacked probable cause to arrest and charge Ciria with first-degree murder. Dissenting, Judge Miller wrote that even assuming the officers viola