942 F. Supp. 2d 1096
D. Or.2013Background
- Police stopped a car with Aranda as a passenger; after initial frisk, Aranda was forcibly taken to the ground and repeatedly punched while officers attempted to handcuff him.
- Broyles and Heidt delivered head, face, and body blows; Desmond tasered Aranda; the incident left Aranda with broken ribs and a fractured elbow.
- Aranda was searched for weapons; a pocketknife was found; Aranda was treated in hospital and jailed for five days.
- Aranda was later acquitted of resisting arrest and related charges; he sued multiple defendants for constitutional violations and state-law torts.
- County Defendants moved for summary judgment on federal §1983 and state-law claims; the court evaluated the reasonableness of force, immunity, municipal liability, and training claims.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the County Defendants’ motion, denying summary judgment on excessive force and municipal liability, but granting on false arrest, malicious prosecution, and certain negligence theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force under §1983 | Broyles' force was excessive given Aranda's nonthreatening behavior. | Force was objectively reasonable under Graham/2-3 factor test and within official discretion. | Fact question; genuine dispute over reasonableness. |
| Qualified immunity for Broyles | Broyles violated clearly established rights; Blankenhorn/Young show illegality. | Right not clearly established due to lack of precedent at time; reasonable officer could believe conduct lawful. | Question of fact; not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment. |
| Municipal liability (ratification) under §1983 | County Sheriff ratified Broyles' unconstitutional conduct. | County did not show absence of evidence; ratification theory survives at summary stage. | Summary judgment denied on ratification theory; genuine issue of material fact. |
| Negligence claim related to training/supervision; deputy Broyles' conduct (battery) vs negligence | County negligent in hiring/training/supervision; Broyles' conduct could amount to negligence. | Broyles' alleged acts are intentional battery, not negligence; cannot support negligence claim. | County granted summary judgment on negligent training/supervision; Broyles' conduct not negligently based. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court 1989) (determines objective reasonableness framework for excessive force)
- Glen v. Wash. Cnty., 673 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2011) (three-step analysis of excessive force; factors include threats and alternatives)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden to show no genuine issue of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court 1986) (mere scintilla not enough; requires genuine dispute of material fact)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court 2001) (two-step analysis for qualified immunity; clearly established right inquiry)
- Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) (focused blows to non-combative suspect can be excessive; notice to officer)
- Young v. County of L.A., 655 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2011) (post-Graham factors; uses strong hint of clearly established principles prior to 2007)
- LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2000) (balance of force against governmental interests; minor crime context)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (balancing test for reasonable force)