Timothy Nelson v. City of Davis
685 F.3d 867
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Nelson, a UC Davis student, was hit in the eye by a pepperball fired by UC Davis/Davis officers during a crowd-dispersal operation on Picnic Day.
- Officers conducted dispersal in a narrow breezeway and blocked safe egress, without clear, audible dispersal instructions.
- Nelson sustained permanent visual injury and withdrew from UC Davis due to the injury and lost scholarship.
- Complaints regarding the use of force were filed but not seriously investigated by the two police departments.
- Nelson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure and other claims; district court denied qualified immunity for some defendants; on appeal, court reviews a denial of summary judgment de novo.
- Defendants challenge whether a Fourth Amendment seizure occurred, whether it was unreasonable, and whether the right was clearly established for qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Nelson seized under the Fourth Amendment? | Nelson was intentionally shot at and restrained. | Seizure requires intent; Nelson was not targeted. | Yes, Nelson was seized. |
| Was the seizure unreasonable under Graham factors? | Force used was excessive given minimal crime and no threat. | Some force to disperse crowds may be justified by safety concerns. | Yes, force was unreasonable. |
| Was the right clearly established for qualified immunity? | Precedents showed such conduct was unlawful. | No precedent specific to pepperballs; novelty excuses not. | Right was clearly established; immunity denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodari D. v. California, 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (seizure requires either physical force or submission to authority)
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1989) (willful acts causing restraint constitute seizure)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (passenger seizure when car stopped for detention)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (balancing test for reasonableness of force)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (novel force methods still unreasonable for nonthreatening targets)
- Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2000) (pepper spray as non-minimal intrusion; area of applicability)
- Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt (Headwaters II), 276 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (pepper spray and restraint cases; notice of unreasonableness)
- LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2000) (pepper spray against minor offenses; using force unreasonable)
- Logan v. City of Pullman, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (E.D. Wash. 2005) (pepper spray not clearly established unreasonable in crowd)