Galina Medvedeva v. City of Kirkland, 15-35750

Medvedeva was encountered by officers who had a right to enter her apartment to investigate a leak; she delayed opening the front door for ~40 minutes.
After officers used a master key to enter, Medvedeva attempted to close a bathroom door to keep officers out and resisted their entry.
Officers arrested Medvedeva for obstruction; she sued claiming unlawful arrest, First Amendment retaliation, ADA failure-to-accommodate, and excessive force, and proceeded to trial on the ADA and excessive force claims.
The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the unlawful arrest and First Amendment claims and submitted ADA and excessive force claims to a jury with specific instructions that Medvedeva challenged on appeal.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo and jury instructions for abuse of discretion (legal correctness reviewed de novo).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unlawful arrest: whether officers had probable cause for obstruction	Medvedeva argued arrest was unlawful	Officers argued her delay and resistance gave probable cause to arrest for obstruction	Arrest was supported by probable cause; summary judgment for officers affirmed
First Amendment retaliation: whether refusal/words were protected speech	Medvedeva argued her conduct was protected expression	Officers argued it was mere failure to obey lawful orders	Court held refusal to comply was not protected; claim dismissed
ADA reasonable accommodation: whether jury should be instructed that plaintiff was "unable to comply" due to disability	Medvedeva argued instruction improperly required inability-to-comply as element	Defendants supported instruction tied to case facts and officers’ ability to accommodate	Inclusion of inability-to-comply language was not reversible error; any error harmless
Excessive force jury instructions: whether instructions omitted critical factors (size difference, warnings, knowledge of mental illness)	Medvedeva argued omissions prevented full consideration of totality of circumstances	Defendants said general totality instruction was sufficient	Instructions adequate; jury allowed to consider totality and plaintiff argued those facts at trial

Whitman v. Mineta, 541 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
Barlow v. Ground, 943 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1991) (probable cause assessment for obstruction)
United States v. Smith, 790 F.2d 789 (9th Cir. 1986) (probable cause/obstruction standard)
City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) (First Amendment protects verbal criticism of police)
Young v. County of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2011) (failure to obey lawful orders not protected speech)
Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for jury instructions)
Coles v. Eagle, 704 F.3d 624 (9th Cir. 2012) (instructional errors require reversal unless harmless)
Sheehan v. City & County of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2014) (ADA reasonable-accommodation framework in arrests)
Hung Lam v. City of San Jose, 869 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2017) (excessive force reasonableness standard)
Brewer v. City of Napa, 210 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2000) (permissibility of general totality-of-circumstances instructions)

AFFIRMED.