Jones v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20669
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Anthony Jones was stopped in Las Vegas, fled on foot, and was tased by Officer Hatten; backup officers arrived and continued repeated and partly simultaneous tasings for over 90 seconds.
- Jones became limp, unresponsive, and died shortly after officers stopped tasing him; the coroner attributed police restraining procedures, including the tasings, as contributing to death.
- Plaintiffs (Jones’s parents and the estate) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) and related Nevada tort claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- District court dismissed the Fourth Amendment claims for lack of standing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 because plaintiffs failed to name the estate’s administrator in the proper capacity; plaintiffs sought substitution but the district court entered judgment without allowing timely substitution.
- The Ninth Circuit (Kozinski, J.) reversed in part: held district court abused discretion under Rule 17 by not giving reasonable time to substitute the proper representative; found triable issues on excessive-force, denied qualified immunity at summary judgment, affirmed dismissal of Fourteenth Amendment claim, and remanded certain state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 17 real-party-in-interest / substitution | Plaintiffs: mistake in naming parties was honest/understandable; court should allow substitution of administrator under Rule 17(a)(3) | Defendants: plaintiffs named wrong party and delay/prejudice justified dismissal | Reversed: district court abused discretion by not allowing reasonable time to substitute administrator (majority); concurrence would affirm dismissal as not an "understandable" mistake and plaintiffs had ample time to cure |
| Excessive force / taser use (Fourth Amendment) | Jones: repeated and simultaneous tasings >90s on a prone, unarmed, nonresisting suspect was unreasonable and caused death | Officers: taser use initially reasonable; rely on precedent to claim not clearly established; argue need to subdue suspect | Remanded: triable issues of fact whether continuous/simultaneous tasings were objectively unreasonable and whether officers knew risk — qualified immunity not resolved at summary judgment |
| Qualified immunity / clearly established law | Plaintiffs: repeated/simultaneous prolonged tasings were beyond precedent and would put officers on notice that conduct violated Fourth Amendment | Defendants: relied on cases (e.g., Brooks/Marquez) suggesting repeated tasings can be justified; argued no clearly established rule forbidding this conduct | Held: clearly established law forbade such force in these circumstances; reasonable juror could find violation, so immunity not appropriate at summary judgment |
| Fourteenth Amendment (parents’ loss-of-companionship) | Plaintiffs: parents have protected interest in adult child’s companionship; conduct may "shock the conscience" | Defendants: parents of adult lack cognizable claim; officers acted without intent to harm | Affirmed dismissal: no evidence officers acted with purpose to harm unconnected to legitimate law enforcement objective |
| State-law claims / Nevada discretionary-immunity, battery, negligence, false arrest | Plaintiffs: tasings show willful or deliberate disregard, so discretionary immunity doesn't bar claims | Defendants: discretionary-function immunity shields officers; arrest was justified | Remanded battery and negligence (triable issues whether conduct amounted to deliberate disregard); affirmed dismissal of false arrest (arrest justified by flight from traffic stop) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (two-step test for overcoming qualified immunity)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010) (taser constitutes intermediate force)
- Mattos v. Agarano (en banc), 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (reconsidering taser jurisprudence; repeated tasings may be excessive)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party on excessive force review)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (objective factors required to justify fear for officer safety)
- Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 159 F.3d 365 (9th Cir. 1998) (survivor may bring § 1983 claims where state law authorizes survival action)