Marty Emmons v. City of Escondido
921 F.3d 1172
9th Cir.2019Background
- In May 2013 Escondido police responded to a welfare check at the Emmons apartment after a 911 caller reported a possible fight; officers proceeded to the apartment despite occupants saying they were not needed.
- Marty Emmons stepped out of the apartment toward the hallway and began to close the door; he says he did not see or hear officers and was grabbed and taken to the ground by Officer Craig.
- Bodycam audio captures Officer Craig saying commands (e.g., “Don’t close the door…get on the ground”) contemporaneous with the physical encounter; parties dispute whether Marty was attempting to exit or resisting.
- Marty sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force; the district court granted summary judgment for the City and officers; the Ninth Circuit previously reversed as to two officers, Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded regarding Officer Craig.
- On remand, the Ninth Circuit considered whether clearly established law prohibited the stop and takedown in these circumstances and affirmed summary judgment for Officer Craig based on qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Craig used excessive force in seizing Marty Emmons | Emmons: Craig grabbed and threw Marty to the ground without justification, using excessive force | Craig: He lawfully attempted to detain/secure a person connected to a domestic-incident investigation and used reasonable force | Court did not reach merits because it found qualified immunity on narrow grounds |
| Whether the right allegedly violated was "clearly established" | Emmons: Existing precedent shows non-trivial force against non-threatening individuals is unlawful | Craig: No prior case squarely governs these facts; Supreme Court requires high specificity | Court: Plaintiff failed to identify a case sufficiently similar to place the constitutional question beyond debate; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether Marty’s conduct constituted mere passive resistance | Emmons: He was not dangerous and merely tried to close the door | Craig: Circumstances could be more than passive resistance (per Supreme Court’s view) | Court: Treated Supreme Court’s determination as indicating Marty’s conduct was not merely passive resistance, undermining precedents plaintiff cited |
| Burden of proof for clearly established law | Emmons: Argued precedent met the burden | Craig: Emphasized plaintiff bears burden to identify controlling precedent | Court: Reiterated plaintiff bears burden and found it unmet; affirmed immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (establishes qualified immunity framework)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (requires context-specific definition of clearly established law)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clarifies burden to show clearly established law)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (requires a prior case with similar facts to deny immunity)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (police entitled to immunity unless precedent ‘‘squarely governs’’)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (court must view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party at summary judgment)
- Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 1086 (example where force against a bystander was excessive)
- Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642 (closer Ninth Circuit precedent finding excessive force during handcuffing after refusal)