Zelaya v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
682 F. App'x 565
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- After arrest on drug charges, Luis Jersain Solano was detained in the Clark County Detention Center psychiatric module during free time in the day room.
- Solano became agitated; LVMPD officers responded and attempted to restrain him; after initial efforts failed, four officers took him to the ground and handcuffed him.
- For at least 90 seconds after Solano was handcuffed and had stopped resisting, three officers continued to pin him to the ground using body weight and bent his legs toward his torso.
- When officers released him, Solano was unconscious and died soon thereafter; the medical examiner concluded the applied force caused his death.
- Solano’s estate and family sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force) and asserted state-law claims; the district court denied officers’ summary judgment seeking qualified immunity (federal) and discretionary immunity (state).
- The officers appealed the denials; the Ninth Circuit affirmed both denials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers used objectively unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Continued body-weight restraint after Solano ceased resisting was excessive and caused death | Use of force was lawful to subdue and control a detainee; not excessive once restrained | A reasonable jury could find the force objectively unreasonable; Fourth Amendment violated |
| Whether the right violated was clearly established for qualified immunity | Drummond and similar precedents made it clearly established that maintaining weight on a subdued, handcuffed detainee for a significant period is unlawful | No controlling precedent clearly established unlawfulness in these circumstances | Violated right was clearly established; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether denial of qualified immunity affects state-law discretionary immunity | Federal liability stands, so state-law claims should not receive immunity in same posture | State-law discretionary immunity should apply independently if federal immunity would have been granted | Because federal qualified immunity denial affirmed, denial of discretionary immunity on state claims is affirmed |
| Jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals of immunity rulings | Plaintiffs argue appeals are properly before the court under controlling precedent | Officers asserted appealable final decision and discretionary immunity appeals are reviewable | Court held it had jurisdiction over both qualified immunity and state-law discretionary immunity appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims by pretrial detainees)
- Drummond ex rel. Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (no qualified immunity where officers pressed weight onto a subdued, handcuffed detainee for a significant period)
- Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2004) (interlocutory appealability of certain immunity rulings)
- Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2011) (reviewability of state-law immunity determinations following federal immunity rulings)