470 F. App'x 627
9th Cir.2012Background
- Keith Tucker died after an altercation with Officers Denney and Hutchinson during Keith’s arrest.
- Sanford Tucker, Keith’s father, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and wrongful death.
- District court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity; court of appeals reviews de novo with light favorable view to Sanford.
- Court splits: no genuine dispute about pre-handcuffing force; genuine disputes exist about post-handcuffing force.
- Court applies a two-prong qualified-immunity test: (1) whether a constitutional right was violated; (2) whether the right was clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-handcuffing force was excessive | Sanford argues force was excessive even before handcuffing | Denney/Hutchinson argue pre-handcuffing force was reasonable given Keith’s resistance | No genuine issue; pre-handcuffing force not excessive |
| Whether post-handcuffing force was excessive | Sanford contends tasing and body pressure after restraint were excessive | Defendants claim force was restrained and Keith posed threat | Genuine issues of material fact remain; jury could find excessive force after handcuffing |
| Whether the right was clearly established for the post-handcuffing use of force | Keith’s restraint violated clearly established law | Court to apply Drummond and similar authority; distinctions apply | Qualified immunity not clearly established; issues for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Espinosa v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2010) (provocation may yield liability for defensive force when Fourth Amendment violated independently)
- Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2002) (provocation of a violent confrontation may affect force used)
- Drummond ex rel. Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (reining in post-handcuffing restraint may violate Fourth Amendment)
- Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2002) (excessive force analysis requires weighing circumstances and credibility)
- Robinson v. York, 566 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2009) (clear establishment standard; context matters)
- Davis v. City of Las Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2007) (clarifies clearly established law in context of force)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (summary judgment standard in civil rights cases; burden on movant)
- Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc; excessive force inquiry requires nuanced fact-finding)