Coles v. Eagle
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120800
D. Haw.2010Background
- On April 24, 2007, Coles was stopped for alleged stolen-vehicle status after driving erratically on Kapiolani Blvd, Honolulu.
- HPD Officer Eagle observed a possibly stolen Nissan via MDC and blocked Coles from backing up, ordering him to exit with hands in sight.
- Robertson arrived to assist, observed Coles moving his left hand and appearing to search under the seat, and drew his gun.
- Eagle broke the driver-side window with a baton and defendants pulled Coles through the window while claiming Coles resisted.
- Coles alleges serious injuries, including facial injuries, nerve damage, and PTSD; defendants claim force was necessary to place Coles on the ground and handcuff him.
- Coles was later arrested for Unauthorized Control of a Propelled Vehicle, Driving Without a License, open container, and an outstanding warrant; he sought treatment at The Queen’s Medical Center.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a Fourth Amendment excessive-force violation? | Coles claims excessive force occurred during the arrest. | Force used was necessary to subdue a resistant suspect. | No; genuine dispute exists; summary judgment denied on this claim. |
| Are the Graham factors sufficient to grant summary judgment? | Factors show unreasonable force given circumstances. | Factors favor reasonableness under totality. | Disputed factual showings preclude summary judgment on reasonableness. |
| Are there viable alternative methods to subdue Coles? | Officers could have used less intrusive means. | Reasonableness required considering the situation; alternatives not definite. | Not definitive; court notes it is the reasonableness, not available alternatives, that governs. |
| Should subjective intent be considered? | Eagle’s alleged discipline suggests improper motive. | Whren-Brigham City standard rejects subjective intent; actions judged objectively. | Irrelevant to reasonableness; subjective intent not considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive force requires objective reasonableness in a traffic-stop context)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis (modified by Pearson))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (modifies sequencing of qualified-immunity analysis)
- Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) (qualified immunity applied where conduct reasonable)
- Davis v. City of Las Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2007) (excessive-force analysis uses totality of circumstances)
- Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 276 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (limits on post-seizure force assessment)
- Forrester v. City of San Diego, 25 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 1994) (premised on totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- Brooks v. City of Seattle, 599 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2010) (a forceful removal and reasonable restraint weighing factors)
- Miller v. Clark County, 340 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2003) (weighing gravity of intrusion against governmental interests)