135 F.4th 19
2d Cir.2025Background
- Shela M. Linton attended a sit-in protest at the Vermont statehouse, protesting the governor’s stance on universal healthcare. When the Statehouse closed, police warned remaining protestors (including Linton) they would be arrested if they did not leave.
- Linton remained seated with her arms linked with others. Police removed several demonstrators before approaching her; some complied, others (like Linton) did not.
- Sergeant Jacob Zorn and Trooper Seth Richardson attempted to remove Linton, using a “rear wristlock” pain compliance technique after she did not stand up when requested. Linton cried out in pain, was eventually carried out, and later alleged permanent physical and psychological injuries.
- Linton brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming Zorn violated her Fourth Amendment rights through excessive force. The district court granted Zorn summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, finding no clearly established law gave him notice his conduct was unlawful.
- Linton appealed, arguing the law was clearly established by prior circuit precedent, and that factual disputes about the circumstances were improperly resolved against her at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether qualified immunity shields Zorn | Amnesty America ‘clearly established’ applicable law | No case law specifically barred this conduct | Law was clearly established; summary judgment was improper. |
| Whether material facts were improperly resolved | District court failed to credit her factual version | Video evidence contradicts Linton’s account | Genuine disputes exist; jury must resolve factual questions. |
| Whether Zorn’s use of force was excessive | Pain compliance was excessive for passive resistance | Force was appropriate due to Linton’s resistance | Jury must decide if force used was objectively unreasonable. |
| Whether Zorn acted in good or bad faith | Statement about calling legislator showed bad faith | Acted in good faith to complete arrest | Jury determination required on good faith/bad faith question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, 361 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2004) (held that gratuitous force against passive resistance by protestors could be excessive force)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (sets out excessive force standard and relevant factors)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity two-prong framework)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (officials must have notice their conduct is unlawful)