In Hughes v. Rodriguez, published April 21, 2022, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court order granting summary judgment to the defendant police officers. The plaintiff inmate escaped from a work crew. He was on the lam for three weeks. The defendant officers and a police dog discovered the residence where the plaintiff was hiding. They used a loudspeaker to urge the plaintiff to exit the home. When this proved unsuccessful, an entry team gathered in the home’s front entryway. At this point, the parties’ versions of events diverged. The plaintiff asserts that he responded to the loudspeaker by yelling he was coming out, and then walked out from his bedroom with his hands held up. After the officer holding the dog saw his hands were up, per the plaintiff, the officer released the dog, who bit him; the officers piled on him; the officers handcuffed him; and after he was handcuffed and subdued, the officers punched him and the dog continued biting him for two minutes or more. Bodycam footage, however, shows the spot where the plaintiff states he stood with his hands up, but does not show the plaintiff in the officers’ view until the dog attacks. The footage shows less than a minute between the dog being released and the plaintiff subdued. The footage does not clearly show whether the plaintiff was punched after being handcuffed. The defendants contend that the silence after the sound of handcuffing refutes the plaintiff’s account that he was beaten after being handcuffed. The plaintiff sued the officers for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, negligence, Bane Act violation, and battery. The district court granted the officers summary judgment as to all claims.
The 9th Circuit first focused on whether to assume plaintiff’s version of events true. The court, following other circuits, determined that the rule in Scott v. Harris (2007) 550 U.S. 372 should be applied to bodycam footage and audio: For purposes of ruling on summary judgment, to the extent the footage and audio blatantly contradict the plaintiff’s testimonial evidence, the facts are properly viewed in the light most favorable to the footage and audio. In this case, the footage and audio do not blatantly contradict all of the plaintiff’s testimony. The district court erred when it viewed all of the plaintiff’s testimony as discredited because part of it was contradicted. As to events on which there is not blatant contradiction, the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. That includes the plaintiff’s allegation he was beaten after being handcuffed. The court then determined that the 8th Amendment excessive force standard applies to all uses of force against inmates, including those used on escaped inmates. Under the 8th Amendment, the relevant inquiry is whether the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Because the injuries inflicted were relatively minor; the use of biting dogs on hiding suspects passes 4th Amendment muster, and thus does not breach the higher 8th Amendment standard; and the officers’ acts in repeatedly urging the plaintiff to comply show a lack of intent to maliciously and sadistically cause harm, the initial use of the dog and handcuffing were proportional to the threat the suspect posed. Whether the alleged post-handcuff beating and use of dog were proportional was a question for the trier of fact. Because the bodycam footage shows any such use of force took place during the rapidly unfolding chaos of the struggle to apprehend the plaintiff, the officers other than the officer who unleashed the dog cannot be held liable for failure to intercede or integral participation. The officer who unleashed the dog was not entitled to qualified immunity, because it is clearly established law that beating a handcuffed suspect as the officer was alleged to have done violates the 8th Amendment. No particularized case law is necessary for a deputy to know that excessive force has been used when a deputy sics a canine on a handcuffed arrestee who has fully surrendered and is completely under control. The canine officer’s liability under the Bane Act is an issue of fact as well. The plaintiff waived appellate review of summary judgment on his state law claims of negligence and battery.
One judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part, opined that the bodycam and audio footage was conclusively inconsistent with the plaintiff’s account of being bitten and beaten after being handcuffed.
Comments