Harry Coles v. Joshua Eagle
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24923
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Coles, a suspect in a stolen Nissan, was stopped at night by Officers Eagle and Robertson in Honolulu.
- Eagle boxed Coles’s car against barriers, ordered him to exit, and allegedly observed Coles’s hands moving while Coles tried to comply with conflicting commands.
- Robertson arrived, drew his weapon, and both officers instructed Coles to exit and keep his hands on the wheel.
- Without warning, Eagle shattered the driver’s side window and Coles was dragged through it as officers pulled him from the car.
- Coles alleges he was beaten and kicked after removal; officers deny post-extraction beating and contend Coles resisted.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment finding some forcible actions reasonable as a matter of law but allowed genuine issues of material fact on post-removal force; a jury later found in favor of the defendants on the post-removal force issue, and Coles challenged the jury instruction as erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment on excessive force. | Coles asserts genuine disputes of material fact about post-removal force. | Eagle/Robertson contend force post-removal was reasonable as a matter of law. | Reversed: district court erred by granting partial summary judgment on post-removal force. |
| Whether the Graham reasonableness factors support the use of force to break the window and extract Coles. | Coles argues the factors favor non-justification of the window breakage. | Defendants argue Graham factors support it given threat/evading risk. | Reversed: material factual disputes preclude summary judgment; reasonable jury could find excessive force. |
| Whether Coles actively resisted or evaded arrest and whether that affected the reasonableness of force. | Coles resisted only passively or by noncompliance; no active resistance. | Coles’s actions constituted active resistance or evasion justifying force. | Reversed: disputed facts on resistance/evading preclude ruling as a matter of law. |
| Whether the jury instruction erroneously stated the law and affected the verdict. | Instruction wrongly told jurors that the window-breaking/dragging could be lawful, foreclosing Graham analysis. | Instruction partially reflected district court’s earlier ruling, not binding on Graham analysis. | Reversed: erroneous instruction requiring retrial consistent with Graham. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (governs Fourth Amendment reasonableness balancing test for use of force)
- Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2002) (summary judgment in excessive force cases should be granted sparingly due to factual disputes)
- Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (analysis of totality of circumstances; less intrusive methods preferred)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010) (limits on active resistance and need for less intrusive means; considerations in Graham factors)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (examination of Graham factors including immediacy of threat)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (materiality and summary judgment standards in constitutional disputes)
- Hunter v. County of Sacramento, 652 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2011) (harmless-error review for jury instructions)