In Williamson v. City of National City, published January 24, 2022, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed denial of the defendant police officers' summary judgment motion, which was based on qualified immunity. The plaintiff participated in a "die in" protest at a city council meeting. In the middle of the meeting, they chanted and lay down on the floor near the public speaking podium. Several others chanted along in the audience. The protesters refused the mayor's call to order, and the officers' warning that they would be arrested. The protesters acted as dead weight and refused to cooperate as they were carried out. The defendant officers handcuffed the plaintiff with her wrists behind her back and pulled her to a standing position. They lost their grip and she rolled over on her stomach. The officers each held the plaintiff under an arm and lifted her. She acted as dead weight. The officers pulled the plaintiff backward by her arms while she was nearly in a seated position. An officer dragged her by her left wrist and forearm. When the plaintiff told the officers they had hurt her shoulder, they called an ambulance and double-cuffed her to lessen the tension. The plaintiff refused paramedics' offer to take her to the hospital. She suffered a sprained wrist, mild swelling, and (allegedly) a torn rotator cuff. She sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and the Bane Act for allegedly using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the officers' qualified immunity summary judgment motion, finding material issues of fact on whether the officers used excessive force in light of the plaintiff's injuries.
The 9th Circuit ruled that the officers were entitled to summary judgment on the first prong of qualified immunity: viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, they did not use excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment analysis balances the type and amount of force used against the government interest served. Here, the use of force was minimal. The inherent risk of officers pulling someone who has gone limp and refuses to move by her own power is not significant. The force used was less than that found minimal in other 9th Circuit cases. Although the plaintiff's injuries were not trivial, they were less than those of plaintiffs in cases where the force was found minimal. The district court erred in focusing exclusively on the plaintiff's injuries in determining whether the force was excessive. While the injuries are relevant, the type and amount of force used and the risk of harm it created must also be considered. If a person reacts more adversely to a use of force than would be expected objectively, that does not itself establish that the officer did not act as a reasonable officer. The government's interest in using force against the protesters was low, but not nonexistent. The protesters had a right to express their disagreement with government, but they did not have a right to prevent duly installed government from performing lawful functions. Balancing the interests, the minimal use of force aligned with the low governmental interest involved. Because the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment, they were also entitled to summary judgment on the Bane Act cause of action.
Comments