991 F.3d 1027
9th Cir.2021Background
- July 15, 2016: 911 caller (girlfriend) reported O’Doan had a grand-mal seizure, was naked, trying to break windows, and had wandered onto a busy street.
- Firefighters and Reno officers Sanford and Leavitt arrived; O’Doan ran, ignored commands, faced officers with clenched fists, resisted; Leavitt’s taser malfunctioned and Sanford used a "reverse reap" takedown; a physical struggle followed and officers handcuffed and leg‑restrained him.
- EMS sedated O’Doan and transported him to the hospital; records listed a seizure diagnosis (based largely on self‑report), but the treating physician said he could not definitively confirm a seizure or post‑ictal state.
- Officers arrested O’Doan at the hospital for resisting a public officer and indecent exposure; he spent one night in custody, charges were later dismissed; O’Doan sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force, false arrest, deliberate fabrication of reports, due process) and brought ADA claims against the City.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Ninth Circuit affirmed as to qualified immunity for the officers on § 1983 claims and affirmed summary judgment for the City on ADA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (Fourth Amendment) | Sanford's reverse reap throw was unreasonable and excessive. | Force was reasonable given Code 3 emergency, naked/fleeing subject, clenched fists, active resistance. | Affirmed: officers entitled to qualified immunity; no clearly established precedent made this use of force unlawful. |
| Wrongful arrest / probable cause | Officers lacked probable cause because O’Doan was in a post‑ictal state and lacked mens rea. | Officers observed unlawful, threatening, resistive conduct; probable cause existed and no clearly established law required them to accept the seizure explanation. | Affirmed: qualified immunity; probable cause determination not clearly establishedly unlawful. |
| Due process / deliberate fabrication | Omitting seizure reports and mis‑dating arrest time shows deliberate fabrication of evidence. | Omission and minor timing discrepancy are not deliberate fabrication; reports included transport for health evaluation. | Affirmed: no clearly established law showing due‑process violation by omission; summary judgment proper. |
| ADA (failure to accommodate / wrongful arrest) | City failed to accommodate disability; arrested rather than transport for evaluation; deliberate indifference. | Plaintiff failed to show a reasonable accommodation or deliberate indifference by the City. | Affirmed: summary judgment for City; plaintiff did not meet deliberate‑indifference standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity balancing test)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (probable cause and clearly established law specificity)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive force standard)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (force claims require fact‑specific precedent)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (per curiam on excessive force/qualified immunity)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (need for precedent closely governing facts)
- Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir.) (fabrication of evidence due‑process rule)
- Sheehan v. City & County of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir.) (ADA policing context)
- Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484 (6th Cir.) (epileptic suspect; qualified immunity on arrest)
- Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320 (probable cause is a low bar)