Tasha Williamson v. City of National City, 23 F.4th 1146

Background:

In July 2018 at a National City council meeting, protesters performed a “die-in” and disrupted the meeting; council adjourned and officers warned protesters to leave or be arrested.
Six protesters, including Tasha Williamson, lay down and agreed in advance to act as dead weight if arrested; officers handcuffed and removed them after repeated warnings.
Officers Lucky Nguyen and John McGough handcuffed Williamson, attempted to lift her when she went limp, and pulled her by her arms/wrists to remove her from the room; Williamson screamed during removal and later complained of shoulder pain.
Paramedics evaluated her; she refused transport, was booked, released next morning, then sought hospital care and alleged a sprained wrist, swelling, and a torn rotator cuff.
Williamson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment excessive force) and California’s Bane Act; the district court denied the officers’ qualified-immunity motion, finding factual disputes and that force was clearly unreasonable.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo, considered the Graham excessive-force framework, and concluded the officers’ force was minimal and reasonable, reversing the denial of qualified immunity and the Bane Act ruling.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they pulled Williamson by her arms/wrists while she went limp	Williamson: pulling the full weight of her body by hyperextended arms caused injury and was unreasonable	Officers: force was minimal, aimed only to remove a passive resister after warnings; removal was reasonable under the circumstances	Court: No constitutional violation; force was minimal and objectively reasonable
Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity	Williamson: disputed facts preclude immunity; force was clearly unreasonable	Officers: entitled to immunity because no Fourth Amendment violation	Court: Qualified immunity granted because no violation occurred (no need to decide clearly-established prong)
Whether the Bane Act claim survives if no constitutional violation exists	Williamson: Bane Act claim asserted based on alleged excessive force	Officers: Bane Act requires an underlying constitutional violation	Court: Bane Act claim fails because there was no constitutional violation; summary-judgment denial reversed
Whether the appellate court may resolve the qualified-immunity denial given factual disputes	Williamson: factual disputes should prevent interlocutory resolution	Officers: denial premised on legal question; appellate jurisdiction appropriate for qualified immunity	Court: Appellate jurisdiction proper for the legal question of whether officers’ conduct violated the Fourth Amendment

Key Cases Cited

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force objective-reasonableness standard)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (recorded video evidence can refute plaintiff’s account for summary-judgment purposes)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (qualified-immunity principles and legal-question review)
Rice v. Morehouse, 989 F.3d 1112 (Fourth Amendment excessive-force analysis from officer’s perspective)
Lowry v. City of San Diego, 858 F.3d 1248 (factors for balancing reasonableness of force)
Forrester v. City of San Diego, 25 F.3d 804 (pain-compliance techniques in protest removal evaluated as minimal intrusion)
Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867 (consideration of risk of harm and actual harm in force analysis)
Johnson v. County of Los Angeles, 340 F.3d 787 (hard pulling/twisting characterized as minimal intrusion)
Felarca v. Birgeneau, 891 F.3d 809 (force against disruptive protesters evaluated in context of restoring order)
Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (framework for evaluating government interest factors)
Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800 (officers may use force reasonably necessary to remove disruptive persons)
Reese v. County of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030 (Bane Act excessive-force elements parallel § 1983 claim)