Ramon Cortesluna v. Manuel Leon
979 F.3d 645
9th Cir.2020Background:
- Nov. 6, 2016: 911 call from a 12‑year‑old reporting her mother’s boyfriend (Cortesluna) had a chainsaw and was threatening the family; dispatcher heard sawing sounds.
- Officers (Leon, Rivas‑Villegas, Kensic and others) arrived; Cortesluna emerged from a sliding door holding a large metal object, dropped it on command, and was seen with a beer; Kensic then announced a knife protruding from Cortesluna’s left pocket.
- Officers ordered Cortesluna to keep his hands up; after he lowered his hands toward his pocket, Leon fired two beanbag rounds at ~10–11 feet (first to the abdomen area, second to the hip).
- After being shot, Cortesluna raised his hands; Rivas‑Villegas pushed him down, pressed a knee into his back while handcuffing, then lifted him by his handcuffed hands; Cortesluna alleges ongoing neck/back pain and emotional distress.
- District court granted summary judgment for all individual officers and dismissed Monell and state claims; Ninth Circuit: affirmed as to Leon and Kensic, reversed as to Rivas‑Villegas (denying qualified immunity) and remanded Monell and state claims for further proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force by Leon (beanbag shots) | Cortesluna: shots were unnecessary—he was not an immediate threat; passive and not reaching for knife. | Leon: shots were objectively reasonable because Cortesluna lowered hands toward a knife in his pocket after commands to keep hands up. | Affirmed for Leon: use of beanbag rounds was objectively reasonable; qualified immunity applies. |
| Excessive force by Rivas‑Villegas (knee/force while prone) | Cortesluna: knee/pressure caused injury to a non‑resisting, injured, prone suspect—excessive. | Rivas‑Villegas: minimal, brief pressure/foot placement to secure and prevent access to knife; reasonable under circumstances. | Reversed for Rivas‑Villegas: triable issue of excessive force and controlling precedent (LaLonde) made the law clearly established—no qualified immunity. |
| Failure to intervene (Kensic) | Cortesluna: Kensic observed events and failed to stop excessive force. | Kensic: events unfolded in seconds; no realistic opportunity to intercede. | Affirmed for Kensic: no evidence he had realistic opportunity to intervene. |
| Monell & state‑law claims against City | City liable for unconstitutional policies/practices leading to force. | City: claims relied on individual liability; district court had dismissed individual claims. | Remanded: because Rivas‑Villegas reversal revives potential Monell/state claims; district court to reconsider in light of partial reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (two‑step qualified immunity framework)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness test for excessive force under Fourth Amendment)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (limits on beanbag use; need for warning and strong governmental interest)
- LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2000) (knee to prone suspect’s back causing injury can violate Fourth Amendment; precedent for clearly established law)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (factors for force reasonableness, including immediate threat and resistance)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (doctrine that clearly established law must be specific to the facts, and cannot be defined at high level of generality)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (when video controls, courts may view facts as depicted on tape)