Surat v. Klamser, 52 F.4th 1261

Background

On April 6, 2017, Fort Collins officers arrested 22‑year‑old Michaella Surat (115 lbs.) after a bar disturbance; Officer Randall Klamser (≈200 lbs.) grabbed her wrist and performed a takedown, slamming her face‑first to the ground. Surat sustained a concussion, cervical strain, facial contusions, and bruises.
Surat was criminally convicted of resisting arrest and obstructing a peace officer; her jury rejected her self‑defense theory.
Surat sued Klamser under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, alleging the takedown was disproportionate to her minimal resistance. Klamser moved to dismiss under Heck and later for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity.
The district court: (a) dismissed portions of the excessive‑force claim inconsistent with Surat’s convictions under Heck but preserved the claim that the takedown used to overcome resistance was excessive; and (b) denied qualified immunity, concluding a jury could find the takedown unconstitutional and that the law was clearly established.
Klamser appealed the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds; the Tenth Circuit accepted interlocutory review of the abstract legal issues.
The Tenth Circuit held the takedown, as alleged, violated the Fourth Amendment but reversed the denial of qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of the specific conduct was not clearly established in April 2017.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Did Klamser’s takedown constitute excessive force?	Surat: slamming an unarmed, non‑threatening misdemeanant into the ground was unreasonable and excessive.	Klamser: Surat resisted arrest; takedown was reasonable to overcome resistance.	A reasonable jury could find the takedown excessive under Graham; Fourth Amendment violation.
2. Does Heck bar Surat’s excessive‑force claim?	Surat: claim challenges force used after arrest and does not invalidate convictions.	Klamser: convictions preclude inconsistent §1983 allegations.	Heck does not bar the claim to the extent it challenges force used to overcome resistance (district court correctly limited scope).
3. Is Klamser entitled to qualified immunity?	Surat: clearly established law forbids using a takedown on a nonviolent misdemeanant who poses little/no threat.	Klamser: law was not clearly established for these facts, so he is entitled to immunity.	Although a constitutional violation existed, the right was not clearly established; Klamser entitled to qualified immunity; reversal of denial of summary judgment.
4. May the appellate court review the denial of qualified immunity now?	Surat: appeal non‑appealable because denial based on disputed facts.	Klamser: appellate review permissible on abstract legal issues assumed by district court.	Court has jurisdiction to review abstract legal questions (whether facts assumed suffice for violation and whether law was clearly established); motion to dismiss appeal denied.

Key Cases Cited

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (conviction‑based bar to civil claims that would invalidate existing criminal verdicts)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (framework for assessing objective reasonableness of force)
Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) (reviewing courts must accept the facts the district court assumed at summary judgment)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework and discretion to address prongs in either order)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established law must be particularized to the facts)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (requirement that existing law place constitutional question beyond debate)
Morris v. Noe, 672 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2012) (force against a misdemeanant who posed no threat and did not resist; discussed but factually distinguishable)
Emmett v. Armstrong, 973 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2020) (assessing threat at the precise moment force was used)
Vette v. K‑9 Unit Deputy Sanders, 989 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 2021) (limits of interlocutory review in qualified immunity appeals)