Rogoz v. City of Hartford, 796 F.3d 236

Background

On May 8, 2009 Rogoz bought heroin, drove through Hartford, and fled when a man in a red Honda approached; he later stopped on a highway when he realized police were behind him.
Rogoz complied with officers' commands on the shoulder: exited his vehicle, lay face down with hands behind his back, and did not resist.
Rogoz alleges Detective George Watson then ran/jumped onto his back, landing knees-first, fracturing a rib and fracturing his spine in two places; defendants conceded the physical injuries for summary judgment purposes.
Watson’s incident report claimed he approached with badge displayed and verbally identified himself; Rogoz swore he did not see any identification from the man who approached in the neighborhood.
District court granted summary judgment to Watson and the other officers, finding Watson’s use of force reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that Watson was entitled to qualified immunity; failure-to-intervene claims against other officers were dismissed for lack of opportunity to intervene.
On appeal the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal as to Watson’s excessive-force claim (and related state claims), holding the record contained genuine disputes (notably whether Watson identified himself before Rogoz fled) that precluded summary judgment; it affirmed dismissal of failure-to-intervene claims against the other officers and remanded the reinstated claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Watson's use of force (jumping on prone, compliant Rogoz causing fractures) was excessive under the Fourth Amendment	Rogoz: he was compliant and prone when Watson jumped on him with enough force to break spine and rib; a jury could find force objectively unreasonable	Watson: force was reasonable given Rogoz’s prior flight after a suspected drug buy and Watson’s claimed prior identification; qualified immunity applies	Vacated district court judgment as to Watson’s §1983 excessive-force claim; genuine disputes prevent summary judgment
Whether Watson is entitled to qualified immunity	Rogoz: even accepting exigent circumstances, law clearly established that gratuitously jumping on a prone, compliant suspect causing serious injury violates Fourth Amendment	Watson: reasonable mistake of fact and law; not clearly established that such force would violate rights in these circumstances	Court: cannot resolve on summary judgment; factual disputes (including whether Watson identified himself) preclude qualified immunity at this stage
Whether other officers are liable for failure to intervene	Rogoz: present officers failed to prevent Watson’s use of excessive force	Officers: Watson’s alleged jump was instantaneous—no realistic opportunity to intercede	Affirmed dismissal: no evidence of realistic opportunity to intervene
Whether related state-law claims should proceed	Rogoz: state claims tied to excessive force should survive if federal claim reinstated	Defendants: district court declined supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims	Court vacated dismissals of related state claims tied to Watson’s excessive force and remanded; other state claims remain as in district court decision

Key Cases Cited

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (establishes objective-reasonableness test for force in arrests)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (use-of-force analysis under Fourth Amendment; totality of circumstances)
Kaytor v. Electric Boat Corp., 609 F.3d 537 (summary judgment standards in Second Circuit)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (court may not resolve credibility on summary judgment)
Maxwell v. City of New York, 380 F.3d 106 (excessive-force claim survived summary judgment for lesser injuries)
Amnesty Am. v. Town of West Hartford, 361 F.3d 113 (fact-specific inquiry in excessive-force cases)
Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (qualified immunity protects reasonable but mistaken judgments)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)