116 F.4th 905
9th Cir.2024Background
- Derrick Sanderlin attended a protest in San Jose, California, following George Floyd’s death in 2020.
- Officer Michael Panighetti shot Sanderlin in the groin with a 40mm foam baton round during the protest, causing serious injuries.
- Sanderlin claimed he was peacefully protesting and not interfering with police; Panighetti contended Sanderlin was obstructing officers from targeting individuals considered dangerous.
- Sanderlin sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging First Amendment (retaliation) and Fourth Amendment (excessive force) violations.
- The district court denied Panighetti’s motion for qualified immunity, finding factual disputes regarding the events and the officers' actions.
- Panighetti appealed the denial on qualified immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment Retaliation | Sanderlin was engaged in protected protest activity; shooting was punitive | Sanderlin obstructed officers, which is not a protected activity | Factual dispute exists; qualified immunity denied |
| Fourth Amendment—Seizure | Firing the baton round intentionally restrained Sanderlin’s movement | Force was to disperse, not restrain; thus not a seizure | Shooting constituted a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment |
| Fourth Amendment—Excessive Force | Use of force was unreasonable against a non-threatening protestor | Sanderlin was a threat, and force was reasonable in the circumstances | Factual dispute exists; a jury must decide reasonableness |
| Qualified Immunity (Were Rights Clearly Established?) | Law clearly established that shooting a non-threatening protestor is excessive force | Law was not settled as to when projectile force constitutes a seizure | Rights were clearly established; denial of qualified immunity affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2012) (officers' use of projectiles against non-threatening individuals amounts to excessive force)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (officers may not use significant force against non-threatening, non-fleeing individuals without warning)
- Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2013) (use of authority to retaliate for protected speech violates the First Amendment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (test for reasonableness of force under the Fourth Amendment)
- Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. 306 (2021) (physical force with intent to restrain constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity shields officials unless rights were clearly established)