Will El v. City of Pittsburgh, 975 F.3d 327

On July 2, 2013 Pittsburgh officers stopped brothers Will and Beyshaud El after a lieutenant suspected a tobacco/synthetic-marijuana purchase; the brothers were unarmed, did not flee, and were eventually handcuffed and arrested.
Lieutenant Reyne Kacsuta approached and had the brothers sit; Will showed ID and both emptied pockets; multiple officers arrived within minutes and a squad dashcam recorded the encounter.
A brief, ~10-second escalation occurred: Will stood and took a step or two; Officer Frank Welling grabbed Will (wrist/neck), shoved him into a storefront and to the ground; Officer Ryan Warnock deployed a taser on Beyshaud after Beyshaud swung.
The brothers were convicted in state court of summary disorderly conduct/harassment; those convictions were not appealed.
The Els sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force) and state assault/battery claims. The district court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part; the officers appealed.
The Third Circuit: (1) reversed denial of summary judgment for Kacsuta on the failure-to-intervene claim as to Welling’s takedown (no realistic opportunity to intervene given the seconds-long event), (2) affirmed denial of qualified immunity for Welling on the excessive-force claim (jury issue and clearly-established right), and (3) dismissed the appeal as to Warnock’s state-law claim for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure-to-intervene (Kacsuta) for Welling’s takedown	Kacsuta stood nearby and failed to stop Welling from slamming Will	The takedown was momentary; Kacsuta had no realistic opportunity to intervene	Reversed denial; Kacsuta entitled to summary judgment (video shows ~5-second event)
Failure-to-intervene (Kacsuta) for Warnock’s tasing of Beyshaud	Kacsuta could have prevented the taser deployment	Event was sudden and ~5 seconds long; no time to intervene	District court had granted summary judgment for Kacsuta on the tasing claim; appellate review agreed no realistic opportunity to intervene
Excessive force (Welling) — taking Will down	Welling grabbed/slammed Will into wall and to ground; force was unreasonable given minor suspicion and lack of threat	Force was reasonable in context, and any right was not clearly established	Affirmed denial of qualified immunity as to Welling; jury could find constitutional violation and right was clearly established by persuasive case law; remand for further proceedings
Jurisdiction over Warnock state-law claim on appeal	Els maintain state-law assault/battery claim should be reviewed	Warnock (and others) did not invoke federal or state immunity in district court	Appeal dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction because no immunity denial was reviewable on collateral order doctrine

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video that blatantly contradicts district-court factual findings may control appellate review)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness standard and factors for excessive-force claims)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified-immunity two-step framework)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may address qualified-immunity steps in either order)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (clearly-established inquiry focuses on whether officer had fair notice)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (right is clearly established only if precedent places the constitutional question beyond debate)
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (general standards clearly establish rights only in obvious cases)
Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641 (Third Circuit duty-to-intervene requires realistic opportunity to act)
Ricks v. Shover, 891 F.3d 468 (brevity of force can defeat failure-to-intervene claim)
Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810 (additional factors for assessing excessive force)
Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156 (Fifth Circuit persuasive authority finding takedown at stop could defeat qualified immunity)
Shreve v. Jessamine Cty. Fiscal Ct., 453 F.3d 681 (Sixth Circuit persuasive authority)
Montoya v. City of Flandreau, 669 F.3d 867 (Eighth Circuit persuasive authority)
Thornton v. City of Macon, 132 F.3d 1395 (Eleventh Circuit persuasive authority)