Cole Spencer v. Aaron Pew, 117 F.4th 1130

Plaintiff Cole Spencer was arrested on March 21, 2018, following a traffic stop in Mesa, Arizona, after initially providing false information and physically resisting officers.
Officers Aaron Pew, Jacob Rozema, and Justin Macklin struggled with Spencer for several minutes, using punches, a taser, knee strikes, and eventually double handcuffs to subdue him.
After Spencer was handcuffed, Officer Pew continued to kneel on Spencer's upper back and neck for several minutes, during which Spencer repeatedly said he could not breathe.
Spencer filed a § 1983 lawsuit alleging excessive force against Pew, Rozema, Macklin, and Shall, among others; the district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, primarily on qualified immunity grounds.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the force used was unreasonable and whether clearly established law prohibited that force, focusing especially on Pew's actions after handcuffing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the force used to handcuff Spencer excessive force?	Officers used significant and unnecessary force during an arrest for a non-violent crime.	Officers faced resistance from a suspect who assaulted an officer and resisted cuffing.	Qualified immunity applies; law not clearly established.
Was force after handcuffing (e.g., kneeling on Spencer) excessive and clearly unlawful?	Pew’s continued use of force after handcuffing was excessive, violating clear precedent.	Continued force necessary due to Spencer's non-compliance and movement on the ground.	Pew is not entitled to qualified immunity for post-handcuffing conduct; claim proceeds.
Are other officers liable as integral participants?	Other officers should be liable for failing to intervene or by assisting Pew’s actions.	No evidence they planned or knowingly acquiesced in Pew’s excessive force.	No liability for other officers; not integral participants.
Did the district court err in granting summary judgment to all defendants?	Evidence supports at least some claims proceeding to trial.	Record and law support summary judgment for all officers on all claims.	Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded as to Pew only.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness governs excessive force claims)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity doctrine and two-prong test)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (summary judgment standard for facts with video evidence)
Drummond ex rel. Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052 (kneeling on handcuffed suspect stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment)
Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. 100 (qualified immunity requires clearly established law on specific facts)
Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (multiple taser deployments analyzed under excessive force frame)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (specificity required for clearly established law in qualified immunity)