Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Michael A. HARTSELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; Trenton Stroh, San Diego County Deputy Sheriff, Defendants-Appellants, Does, 1-15, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ***
San Diego County Deputy Sheriff Trenton Stroh and the County of San Diego appeal from the district court's order denying in part their motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in Michael Hartsell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We review the denial of qualified immunity de novo. Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir. 1993). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We consider two questions to determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether, “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, ․ the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right”; and (2) if so, “whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), overruled on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236–42, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).
1. Evaluating the force employed by Stroh against Hartsell through his police canine under the standards articulated in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394–98, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989), and Miller v. Clark County, 340 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2003), we conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hartsell, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Stroh's continued use of force became objectively unreasonable when Hartsell complied with instructions to show his hands, emerged from the brush with the canine attached to his arm, and was within the deputies’ control, if not sooner.
2. Moreover, preexisting law gave Stroh fair warning that it would be unlawful to use a canine in a prolonged manner under circumstances such as those alleged by Hartsell. In the particularized context of the use of police canines, we held more than twenty years ago that “it was clearly established that excessive duration of [a canine] bite [or] improper encouragement of a continuation of [an] attack by officers could constitute excessive force that would be a constitutional violation.” Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing, as an example of excessive force, “a deputy sic[cing] a canine on a handcuffed arrestee who has fully surrendered and is completely under control”).
Accordingly, the district court properly denied qualified immunity in part.
AFFIRMED.1
FOOTNOTES
1. Defendants-Appellants’ motion to dismiss the County of San Diego as a party to this appeal is granted (Doc. 34).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-55379
Decided: April 21, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)