989 F.3d 1112
9th Cir.2021Background
- On Dec. 26, 2011, Idaho State Trooper Janet Murakami stopped Lee Rice for an alleged lane‑change signal violation; Rice refused to provide documents and asked to speak to a supervisor.
- Murakami radioed a Code 3 request for urgent backup; she later told arriving officers she only needed one unit and that Rice was "just not wanting to comply," but some arriving units did not receive her later downgrade.
- Officers Morehouse and Shaffer arrived, helped pull Rice from his car, held him in a "police lead," then tripped/took him down face‑first; Rice was pinned, kneed/struck, handcuffed, and suffered long‑term injuries.
- State criminal charges were dismissed after the court found the initial stop unlawful; Rice sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for Morehouse and Shaffer as to the take‑down (qualified immunity), denying immunity on scrum claims; Rice appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit, viewing disputed facts in Rice’s favor and finding clearly established law, reversed the grant of qualified immunity as to the take‑down and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morehouse and Shaffer's take‑down constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment | The take‑down used substantial, aggressive force on a passively resisting subject and caused serious injury; it was unreasonable given the minor traffic context and lack of threat | The officers acted reasonably in light of a Code 3 urgent backup call and believed Rice was resisting or posed a safety risk | A jury could find the take‑down was excessive when facts viewed in Rice's favor; summary judgment denied on qualified immunity for the take‑down |
| Whether Rice’s right to be free from non‑trivial force for passive resistance was "clearly established" (qualified immunity) | Existing Ninth Circuit precedent put officers on notice that non‑trivial force against passive resistance is unconstitutional | Officers argue lack of clearly established law applicable to the specific facts and reliance on Code 3 made their response reasonable | The court held the law was clearly established by cases (e.g., Gravelet‑Blondin, Bryan) and denied qualified immunity on the take‑down |
| Whether Rice’s Notice of Appeal conferred jurisdiction despite not explicitly naming the April 2015 order | Notice appealing the final judgment (and centrality of the take‑down issue) fairly conveyed intent; appellees had notice and opportunity to brief | Defendants argued the notice failed Rule 3(c) specificity and they were prejudiced | The Ninth Circuit found Rice’s pro se notice sufficient; no prejudice to appellees; appeal is properly before the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective‑reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment excessive force)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010) (intermediate force at traffic stop; balance of Graham factors and warnings/alternatives)
- Gravelet‑Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2013) (non‑trivial force against passive resistance violates clearly established law)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (officers must assess exigency and may be required to independently evaluate situation on arrival)
- Headwaters Forest Def. v. Cnty. of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2000) (use of force against passive, nonviolent protesters can be unreasonable)
- City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500 (2019) (Supreme Court: do not define clearly established law at high generality; look to fact‑specific precedent)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence may objectively contradict a party’s version of events)
- Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2012) (failure to immediately comply does not justify non‑trivial force)