Russell Bartlett v. Luis Nieves
712 F. App'x 613
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- At Arctic Man in 2014, Alaska state troopers Nieves and Weight arrested Russell Bartlett after observing him drinking, speaking loudly, standing close to Trooper Weight, and being pushed back by Weight.
- Bartlett alleges § 1983 claims: false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and retaliatory arrest (First Amendment).
- District court granted summary judgment for the troopers on all claims; Bartlett appealed.
- Ninth Circuit reviews de novo and applies qualified immunity and circuit precedent standards.
- The panel affirmed summary judgment on false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution (probable cause/qualified immunity).
- The panel reversed dismissal of the retaliatory arrest claim, holding a retaliatory-arrest claim can proceed despite probable cause and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest | Arrest lacked probable cause | Troopers had at least arguable probable cause based on Bartlett's conduct | Affirmed — qualified immunity; arguable probable cause existed |
| Excessive force | Use of force during arrest was unconstitutional | Force was limited, reasonable under chaotic Arctic Man conditions | Affirmed — no clearly established law showing similar conduct unconstitutional |
| Malicious prosecution | Prosecuted with malice and without probable cause to deny rights | Prosecution was supported by probable cause | Affirmed — probable cause defeats malicious prosecution claim |
| Retaliatory arrest (First Amendment) | Arrest was retaliation for Bartlett’s refusal to answer questions; speech-protective motive | Probable cause bars retaliatory-arrest claim | Reversed — Ninth Circuit allows retaliatory-arrest claims despite probable cause; sufficient evidence (e.g., alleged comment by Nieves) to survive summary judgment; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. County of Merced, 639 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment in § 1983 qualified immunity context)
- Lal v. California, 746 F.3d 112 (9th Cir. 2014) (two-part qualified immunity test cited)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework)
- John v. City of El Monte, 515 F.3d 936 (9th Cir.) (probable cause assessed from officer's information at time of arrest)
- Young v. County of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir.) (excessive-force precedent distinguished)
- Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir.) (excessive-force precedent distinguished)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established law must be particularized)
- Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.) (elements for malicious prosecution under § 1983)
- Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir.) (retaliatory-arrest claim can proceed despite probable cause)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012) (distinguishing retaliatory arrest from retaliatory prosecution)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (rule for retaliatory prosecution requires lack of probable cause)
- Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir.) (arrest in retaliation for speech can chill First Amendment activity)