United States Ninth Circuit

In this en banc opinion addressing a decision by Sonora City Police officers to handcuff and remove plaintiff-child from school for refusing to leave the playground, denial of defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and judgment in favor of plaintiff is: 1) affirmed in part, where defendants have not identified any plain error in the jury instructions, the evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion, and defendants have not shown that they are entitled to a settlement offset; 2) affirmed in part, where the police officers involved in the incident are not entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, because no officer could have reasonably believed that their use of handcuffs to seize and remove a compliant and calm plaintiff from school grounds complied with the Fourth Amendment; and 3) reversed in part, where the officers were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the unlawful seizure claim, because a reasonable officer would not have known that taking a child in the situation into temporary custody was unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/15/2014
• Published 10/15/2014

Judges

• Paez

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel