Jerry Vierra v. James Nuti, Jr.
659 F. App'x 420
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff (pro se) filed a second amended complaint asserting multiple §1983 claims against James Nuti and several other individuals arising from an altercation on Highway 82 and subsequent arrest and detention.
- Allegations against Nuti include: driving an SUV toward Plaintiff threateningly; initiating a manhunt by falsely reporting Plaintiff pointed a gun (later saying the gun was pointed at the ground); attacking Plaintiff; arresting Plaintiff without probable cause; pointing a gun at a handcuffed Plaintiff; threatening Plaintiff about leaving Cochise County; and submitting falsified reports to prosecutors.
- Plaintiff alleges he was detained 64.5 hours based on fabricated evidence and was arrested for conduct (walking on a fog line) that was at most a minor infraction.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds; the district court denied the motion; defendants appealed interlocutorily.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews denial of a qualified-immunity dismissal de novo and construes pro se pleadings liberally.
- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it held Nuti is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s 1st (excessive force), 5th (unlawful arrest), and 8th (unlawful detention) claims; it reversed as to remaining federal claims against other defendants and ordered those dismissed (state defamation claim not reviewed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (Fourth Amendment) | Nuti used significant, unreasonable force given only a minor infraction | Qualified immunity because force was justified or not clearly excessive | Denied for Nuti — alleged force was unreasonable and clearly excessive |
| Unlawful arrest (probable cause) | Arrest was based on fabricated/perjured reports; no probable cause | Arrest supported by statements Nuti provided; qualified immunity applies | Denied for Nuti — allegations show arrest lacked probable cause and may have been induced by fabricated evidence |
| Unlawful detention / due process (64.5 hours) | Detention resulted from fabricated evidence and deliberate indifference | Detention lawful given process and evidence; qualified immunity applies | Denied for Nuti — pleading sufficient to allege due-process violation from false arrest and deliberate indifference |
| Liability of other defendants under §1983 | Other defendants participated or are liable for misconduct | Qualified immunity shields them at pleading stage | Reversed as to other defendants — they are entitled to qualified immunity; federal claims dismissed against them |
Key Cases Cited
- Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 1999) (standard of review for denial of immunity-based dismissal)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (use of force claims analyzed under Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Dubner v. City of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2001) (unlawful arrest cognizable under §1983 when without probable cause)
- Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2004) (fabricated evidence and perjury can rebut probable cause)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (due process claim from wrongful incarceration supported by false arrest allegations)
- Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2002) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review state-law tort claims on interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal)