9th Circuit upholds jury verdict for California park officers who arrested a beachgoer, finding no…
Mattingly v. California Department of Parks and Recreation
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds jury verdict for California park officers who arrested a beachgoer, finding no errors in jury instructions on retaliation or probable cause claims.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict in favor of California Department of Parks and Recreation officers who had arrested Michael Mattingly. Mattingly challenged several jury instructions, arguing they were flawed, but the court found no reversible error in how the trial judge explained the law on retaliatory arrest, probable cause, or park regulations. The court reasoned that the case properly went to a jury to resolve factual disputes about Mattingly's conduct beyond simply refusing to identify himself.
Who it affects
This ruling most directly affects people who bring civil rights lawsuits against law enforcement officers for retaliatory arrest, particularly in the Ninth Circuit states. It also affects government agencies like state park departments that may face such suits, reinforcing that probable cause findings and uncontested jury instructions can be very difficult to overturn on appeal.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 20, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Michael Mattingly sued several peace officers employed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation under federal civil rights law (42 U.S.C. Section 1983), claiming he was arrested in retaliation for protected activity and that the officers lacked probable cause. A jury sided with the officers, and Mattingly appealed, raising several challenges to how the trial was conducted. On the retaliation instruction, the court applied a 'plain error' standard because Mattingly had not properly objected at trial. Under the Supreme Court's Nieves v. Bartlett framework, probable cause generally defeats a retaliatory arrest claim, with a narrow exception for situations where officers have probable cause but typically exercise discretion not to arrest. The appeals court found the trial judge correctly explained this rule and saw no obvious error. Mattingly also challenged the probable cause instruction, arguing the jury should have been told that simply refusing to answer questions or identify oneself cannot constitute obstruction under California law. The court acknowledged that verbal protests and refusals to cooperate alone cannot support an arrest, but noted the trial centered on disputed facts about Mattingly's physical conduct, including whether he stepped into a sergeant's path and interfered with officers clearing a beach. Because those factual disputes were properly before the jury, the court found no reversible error in declining his preferred limiting instruction. The court also rejected Mattingly's argument that park regulations about hours, fire locations, and alcohol were unconstitutional under a California constitutional provision about access to navigable waters. The court found Mattingly cited no law giving him the right to sue the Parks department on that basis. His remaining arguments, including challenges to the exclusion of legal conclusions from witness testimony, the court's response to a jury question during deliberations, and comments jurors made to him in a courthouse hallway after the verdict, were all rejected. Federal evidence rules bar courts from considering juror statements about their deliberations or mental processes after a verdict. The panel was unanimous and the opinion is unpublished, meaning it does not set binding precedent except in limited circumstances under Ninth Circuit rules.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL MATTINGLY, No. 25-290 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 5:23-cv-03754-VKD v. MEMORANDUM* CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION; PETE ESTES; ALEX TABONE; CHRIS WEAVER; RYAN THORNE; ANDREW FILOUS; KEVIN WARD; SCOTT ACKERMAN; JOE WALTERS; GABE MCKENNA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Virginia Kay DeMarchi, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2026** Before: McKEOWN, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Michael Joseph Mattingly (“Mattingly”) appeals from a jury verdict in favor * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). of seven peace officers of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (“Parks”). The parties are familiar with the facts, and we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. We identify no “obvious” error affecting Mattingly’s “substantial rights,” and thus no plain error, in his unpreserved challenge to the retaliation jury instruction. C.B. v. City of Sonora, 769 F.3d 1005, 1017–18 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc); Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(2). The district court correctly instructed the jury that in a Section 1983 suit, “probable cause . . . generally defeat[s] a retaliatory arrest claim,” except in “circumstances where officers have probable cause to make arrests, but typically exercise their discretion not to do so.” Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391, 406 (2019).1 There is no plain error that “reach[es] the pinnacle of fault” in this instruction. Sonora, 769 F.3d at 1018. There is likewise no plain error in the unpreserved challenge to the probable- cause jury instruction. Id. The denial of Mattingly’s preferred limiting instruction—that failure to answer questions does not constitute obstruction under California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1)—did not affect his substantial rights. It is true that “verbal protests could not support an arrest under § 148,” Mackinney v. 1 For this reason, there is also no inconsistency between the jury’s finding that Mattingly’s activity was constitutionally protected and its finding that Parks peace officers had probable cause to arrest him for violation of California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1). 2 25-290 Nielsen, 69 F.3d 1002, 1007 (9th Cir. 1995), and that in the retaliatory arrest context, “even an outright refusal to cooperate with police officers cannot create adequate grounds for police intrusion without more,” Hill v. City of Fountain Valley, 70 F.4th 507, 515 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation modified). But this case was tried precisely to resolve factual disputes about Mattingly’s conduct beyond his refusal to identify himself, including whether he was arrested, whether he stepped into Sergeant Estes’s path instead of standing back as instructed, and whether he hampered officers in their efforts to clear the beach. In the absence of plain error, Mattingly has not carried the burden of establishing entitlement to relief. United States v. Williams, 172 F.4th 791, 800 (9th Cir. 2026). Separately, he has also “not offered any factually analogous case ‘clearly establishing’ that the officers’ actions were unlawful under these circumstances.” Hill, 70 F.4th at 517. Reviewing de novo Mattingly’s preserved objection to the instruction regarding the constitutionality of Twin Lakes State Park Beach regulations regarding park hours, fire locations, and alcohol consumption, see Chess v. Dovey, 790 F.3d 961, 970 (9th Cir. 2015), we also affirm. Mattingly’s argument is based on a provision of the California Constitution that concerns “[a]ccess to the navigable waters of th[e] State” and expressly requires “the Legislature [to] enact . . . laws” to provide such access. Cal. Const. art. 10, § 4. Mattingly cites no law that confers a private right of action against the Parks to bring this claim. 3 25-290 Mattingly’s remaining arguments fail. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding legal conclusions from witness examinations. See United States v. Crawford, 239 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (Feb. 14, 2001). The court also “acted within its discretion by simply referring the jury to the instructions” when the jury asked for supplemental legal materials. Arizona v. Johnson, 351 F.3d 988, 995 (9th Cir. 2003). We finally reject Mattingly’s arguments about jurors’ post-verdict intimations to him in the courthouse hallway because we “may not receive . . . evidence of a juror’s statement on . . . matters” related to “the jury’s deliberations,” “the effect of anything on . . . [a] juror’s vote”, or “any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict.” Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1). AFFIRMED. 4 25-290
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.