JACKSON v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1:21-cv-01475

Plaintiff Mark Jackson sued Officer Glenn Lombardini and the District of Columbia under § 1983 for alleged excessive force during two arrests in 2018.
All claims except the excessive force claim against Lombardini in his individual capacity were dismissed or conceded prior to summary judgment.
The first incident (April 19, 2018): Jackson was arrested for public urination; a confrontation ensued, Jackson threatened Lombardini, and a takedown maneuver was employed to effectuate the arrest.
The second incident (May 8, 2018): Jackson was arrested for open container possession; he physically resisted handcuffing, and while force was used to restrain him, Jackson suffered a dislocated elbow.
Only the excessive force claims related to these encounters remained at the time of summary judgment, which Lombardini sought to resolve on the grounds of qualified immunity.
Video footage was available for both incidents; the court viewed facts in the light most favorable to Jackson for summary judgment purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Was force used during April 19, 2018 arrest excessive and clearly established unconstitutional?	Officer "slammed" Jackson into dumpster and then to the ground, using unnecessary force.	Force used was reasonable in light of resistance and threat; no clearly established law prohibited such actions.	Not clearly established as unconstitutional; qualified immunity granted.
Was the takedown (April 19, 2018) excessive force?	Takedown maneuver was excessive after minimal resistance.	Takedown reasonable due to plaintiff’s resistance and threats; similar force upheld in prior cases.	No clear precedent prohibiting takedowns under these circumstances; qualified immunity granted.
Was force during May 8, 2018 arrest (resulting in elbow dislocation) excessive and clearly established unconstitutional?	Force used to handcuff was excessive, resulted in injury.	Force was necessary due to resistance; no controlling authority says resulting injury alone establishes excessive force.	No clear precedent prohibiting force used; qualified immunity granted.
Does a resulting injury (like a dislocated elbow) alone establish excessive force under prevailing law?	Injury demonstrates excessive force even if handcuffing is otherwise justified.	No case law establishes that injury alone, without unreasonable force, violates clearly established rights.	No; injury alone does not defeat qualified immunity under existing precedent.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (articulates the "objective reasonableness" standard for excessive force claims)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standards for summary judgment)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (court views facts in light depicted by videotape for summary judgment)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2011) (qualified immunity turns on whether law was clearly established)
White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73 (U.S. 2017) (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or those knowingly violating the law)
Oberwetter v. Hilliard, 639 F.3d 545 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (no excessive force where officer shoved arrestee and twisted arm during routine arrest)
Lin v. District of Columbia, 47 F.4th 828 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (no excessive force where arrestee was yanked from chair and pushed into wall)
Scott v. District of Columbia, 101 F.3d 748 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (takedown and pinning to handcuff not excessive where arrestee was resisting)
Hedgpeth v. Rahim, 893 F.3d 802 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (qualified immunity appropriate where takedown used to subdue resisting subject)
Wasserman v. Rodacker, 557 F.3d 635 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (officers may use some degree of physical coercion for resisting arrest)
Martin v. Malhoyt, 830 F.2d 237 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (no excessive force during forceful handcuffing absent clear unreasonableness)