Lee Rice, II v. Janet Murakami, 671 F. App'x 472

Plaintiff Lee Arthur Rice, II sued multiple law enforcement officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force during an arrest.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds; the district court denied those motions.
Officers appeal the denial; the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo and views facts in the light most favorable to Rice.
Rice did not allege Officer Janet Murakami personally used force, but alleged she knew or should have known her Code 3 call would cause others to use excessive force.
The record contains conflicting witness accounts and a video showing a physical altercation (the district court called part of it a “scrum”); the video was not dispositive.
The panel reversed qualified immunity for Murakami but affirmed denial for the other officers, finding genuine disputes of material fact about whether Rice was resisting and whether force used (strikes/knees while he was on the ground) was excessive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for alleged excessive force	Rice: officers used excessive force (strikes/knees) while he was not physically resisting	Officers: conduct was lawful or insufficiently shown to be excessive; factual disputes preclude liability	Denied for most officers (genuine factual disputes); summary judgment reversed for Murakami
Whether Murakami can be liable for calling Code 3 absent personal use of force	Rice: Murakami should have foreseen that her Code 3 call would cause others to use excessive force	Murakami: no evidence she should have foreseen others would violate the Fourth Amendment or training/policies	Reversed as to Murakami — she is entitled to qualified immunity
Whether video evidence definitively resolves factual disputes	Rice: video supports claim he was not resisting and was struck/kneed while prone	Defendants: video and evidence undermine Rice’s account; summary judgment should be granted	Court: video unclear; credibility/factual disputes remain for jury (denial stands for most officers)
Whether law was clearly established that striking/kneeing a nonresisting arrestee is excessive force	Rice: precedents clearly establish such force is excessive	Defendants: dispute sufficiency of evidence and applicability	Court: law clearly established; reasonable jury could find excessive force, so qualified immunity denied for those officers

Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for qualified immunity denials)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (viewing facts and inferences on summary judgment)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity framework)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity procedure adjustments)
Palmer v. Sanderson, 9 F.3d 1433 (9th Cir. 1993) (use of strikes on nonresisting arrestee can be excessive force)
Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1989) (excessive force standard applies to nonresisting detainees)
Young v. County of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2011) (analysis of excessive force and qualified immunity)
Winterrowd v. Nelson, 480 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2007) (excessive force precedent)
George v. Morris, 736 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2013) (interlocutory appeals: factual determinations by district court are generally unreviewable)