Shafer v. County of Santa Barbara
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16512
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 4, 2009, amid a large, intoxicated crowd near UCSB, deputies responded to reports that water balloons had been thrown at students.
- Deputy Padilla identified Jay Russell Shafer holding water balloons and ordered him to drop them; Shafer refused and asked why he could not hold them.
- Deputies grabbed Shafer; testimony diverged as to whether Shafer resisted and whether Padilla used a leg-sweep takedown that caused minor injuries.
- Shafer sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, First Amendment violation, and Fourth Amendment excessive force; a jury found excessive force and awarded damages but found Padilla had probable cause to arrest under Cal. Penal Code § 148.
- The district court denied Padilla’s pretrial and post-trial qualified-immunity motions; Padilla appealed the denial after the jury verdict.
- The Ninth Circuit held there was sufficient evidence of excessive force but reversed the verdict on qualified immunity grounds, concluding the law was not clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Shafer: leg-sweep takedown was excessive given circumstances and caused injury | Padilla: force was reasonable to effect arrest of a resisting misdemeanant in a chaotic scene | Jury found excessive force; appellate court agreed evidence was sufficient to support that verdict |
| Whether Padilla is entitled to qualified immunity | Shafer: law clearly prohibited use of this level of force; no basis for force | Padilla: no clearly established law put him on notice; some force permissible to effect arrest | Court held qualified immunity applies because existing precedents did not clearly establish illegality under these facts |
| Proper definition of the ‘‘clearly established’’ right for qualified immunity | Shafer: officers should have known any force here was unlawful | Padilla: right must be defined with particularity; no case on point | Court defined the question specifically and required a closely analogous precedent; none existed |
| Allocation of burden on clearly established inquiry | Shafer: Padilla must show he did not violate a clearly established right | Padilla: plaintiff bears burden to show right was clearly established | Court reaffirmed plaintiff bears burden to identify clearly established precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step and discretion to address prongs)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (need for closely analogous precedent to show law was clearly established)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (‘‘obvious case’’ exception to precise-analogue requirement for clearly established law)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence and reasonable inferences)