UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ESTATE OF DECEDENT No. 23-4466 LOLOMANIA SOAKAI; LAVINIA D.C. No. SOAKAI, an individual and personal 3:23-cv-00381-SK representative of Estate; DANIEL FIFITA, an individual; SAMIEUELA FINAU, an individual; INA OPINION LAVALU, an individual,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v. WALID ABDELAZIZ, in his individual capacity as a police officer for the city of Oakland; JIMMY MARIN-CORONEL, in his individual capacity as a police officer for the city of Oakland,

Defendants - Appellants, and CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal corporation,

Defendant. 2 ESTATE OF SOAKAI V. ABDELAZIZ

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Sallie Kim, Magistrate Judge, Presiding *

Argued and Submitted November 20, 2024 San Jose, California

Filed May 16, 2025 Before: Susan P. Graber, Michelle T. Friedland, and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Graber; Dissent by Judge Bumatay

SUMMARY **

Qualified Immunity

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant police officers’ motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by innocent bystanders, who were injured by a fleeing suspect who lost control of his car and crashed into them as a result of a high-speed car chase.

* The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ESTATE OF SOAKAI V. ABDELAZIZ 3

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights by (1) conducting a high-speed chase for the purpose of harming the fleeing suspect in a manner that exceeded any legitimate law enforcement purpose, and (2) failing to summon or render emergency services for plaintiffs after the crash that defendants affirmatively helped to cause. Addressing plaintiffs’ purpose-to-harm claim, the panel held that plaintiffs stated a substantive due process claim by plausibly alleging that, as bystanders, they were injured when defendants conducted a high-speed chase with a purpose to harm the suspect in a manner that exceeded any legitimate law enforcement purpose. Because the law was clearly established before the date of the car chase that defendants’ conduct was unconstitutional, defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. The panel rejected defendants’ assertion that to state a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim, a bystander injured by a high- speed police chase must plausibly allege that the officer acted with an improper purpose to harm the bystander specifically. This Circuit’s precedent recognizes that an officer owes a duty to all those in the vicinity, including bystanders, to limit their intent to harm to legitimate law enforcement purposes. Addressing plaintiffs’ alternative, narrower state-created danger claim, the panel held that—although the Fourteenth Amendment generally does not confer any affirmative right to governmental aid—plaintiffs plausibly alleged that defendants affirmatively created danger by initiating a car chase that led to a crash and then acted with deliberate indifference to plaintiffs’ worsening medical condition by failing to summon help. If plaintiffs’ allegations are true, defendants violated clearly established law by acting with 4 ESTATE OF SOAKAI V. ABDELAZIZ

deliberate indifference to the injuries that resulted from the collision that defendants