Yvette Felarca v. Robert Birgeneau
891 F.3d 809
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- On Nov. 9, 2011, thousands of Occupy-inspired protesters at UC Berkeley erected tents in violation of a preexisting university no-camping policy; administrators had an operational plan and warned enforcement would occur.
- Police issued dispersal orders, removed tents, and during two phases of enforcement used hands and batons to move and control crowds; some protesters linked arms to block access and some resisted physically.
- Several protesters alleged baton strikes and filed §1983 claims for excessive force against two officers (Officer Lachler, Sgt. Tucker) and supervisory claims against several university administrators and police supervisors.
- The district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds for certain direct-force and supervisory claims; defendants appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and analyzed (1) whether the officers’ force violated the Fourth Amendment and (2) whether the law was clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct excessive force by Officer Lachler and Sgt. Tucker (baton strikes) | Plaintiffs: baton jabs/strikes against protesters who were nonviolent or only mildly resisting were unreasonable | Defendants: strikes were minimal, aimed to move an obstructive crowd and permitted under crowd-control policy | Court: Not excessive as to the four named plaintiffs; force was minimal in amount and justified by governmental interest; grant summary judgment for officers |
| Supervisory liability for university administrators (Birgeneau, Breslauer, Celaya) | Plaintiffs: administrators planned and acquiesced to a police response that resulted in baton strikes | Defendants: administrators did not direct specific uses of force and lacked requisite personal involvement | Court: No sufficient causal/personal involvement to impose supervisory liability; summary judgment required |
| Supervisory liability for non-police administrators (Le Grande, Williams, Holmes) | Plaintiffs: administrators participated in pre-event planning that led to force | Defendants: not in police chain of command or supervisory over officers | Court: These administrators had no supervisory authority over police; summary judgment required |
| Supervisory liability for police supervisors (Lt. DeCoulode, Sgt. Tucker) for injuries to other plaintiffs | Plaintiffs: supervisors oversaw officers who struck named plaintiffs; subordinates used excessive force | Defendants: plaintiffs failed to identify responsible officers or show supervisors ordered/should have known of unconstitutional force; qualified immunity applies | Court: For several plaintiffs, even assuming subordinates used excessive force, plaintiffs failed to show law was clearly established for such baton uses in these circumstances; summary judgment required |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness balancing test)
- 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)
- Young v. County of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156 (baton/force analysis in protest/arrest context)
- Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 276 F.3d 1125 (use of force against peaceful chained protestors)
- Jackson v. City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646 (crowd-control and safety interests supporting force)
- Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846 (injury severity informs amount-of-force inquiry)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (supervisory liability and required causal connection)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (clearly-established-law requires similar prior precedent)