hunt v. massi, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Hunt v. Massi, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1379

BRI AN HUNT AND KI MBERLY HUNT,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ees ,

v.

DAVI D MASSI AND J AMES PORTER,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s,

and

TOWN OF FALMOUTH,

Def endant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Wi l l i am G. Young, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,St ahl and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Thomas R. Donohue, wi t h whomLeonar d H. Kest en, Dei dre Br ennanRegan, and Br ody, Har doon, Per ki ns & Kest en, LLP wer e on br i ef , f or

appel l ant s.Rober t S. Si nshei mer , wi t h whom Laur en Thomas and Si nshei mer& Thomas were on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

December 10, 2014


2/22

LYNCH, Chief Judge. Thi s ci vi l r i ght s case ar i ses out of

t he r ef usal of of f i cer s ser vi ng an ar r est war r ant t o accede t o t he

r equest of an ar r est ee, Br i an Hunt , t hat he be handcuf f ed wi t h hi s

hands i n f r ont of hi m, and t he ensui ng event s.

Hunt and hi s wi f e br ought t hi s case, asser t i ng vi ol at i ons

of hi s f eder al const i t ut i onal r i ght s under 42 U. S. C. 1983, as

wel l as pendent st at e l aw cl ai ms. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he

pol i ce of f i cer s' cl ai m of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on summar y j udgment

based, i n par t , on t he cour t ' s er r oneous concept i on of t he cl ear l y

est abl i shed l aw. Hunt v. Massi , 5 F. Supp. 3d 160, 165- 67 ( D.

Mass. 2014) . The def endant s sought i nt er l ocut or y appel l at e r evi ew.

We have i nt er l ocut or y appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on over

por t i ons of t hi s appeal . We hol d t hat Hunt had no cl ear l y

est abl i shed r i ght t o be cuf f ed wi t h hi s hands i n f r ont of hi m and

t hat t he of f i cer s r easonabl y under st ood t hei r act i ons i n

ef f ect uat i ng t he ar r est t o be const i t ut i onal . We r ever se t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of summar y j udgment f or t he pl ai nt i f f s'

cl ai m of excessi ve f or ce under 1983. Exer ci si ng pendent

j ur i sdi ct i on, we al so r each and r everse t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al

of summar y j udgment on t he pl ai nt i f f s' st at e l aw cl ai ms of bat t er y

and vi ol at i on of t he Massachuset t s Ci vi l Ri ght s Act ( "MCRA") . We

l ack appel l at e j ur i sdi cti on over t he pl ai nt i f f s' mal i ci ous

pr osecut i on cl ai ms, and r emand t hose cl ai ms, bot h st at e and

f eder al .

-2-


3/22

I . Fact ual Backgr ound

On J une 2, 2011, t he New Bedf ord Di st r i ct Cour t i ssued an

arr est warr ant f or Hunt based on i nf ormat i on t hat he had an unpai d

f i ne f or a t r af f i c vi ol at i on. Hunt , 5 F. Supp. 3d at 162. I t was

l at er di scover ed t hat Hunt had pai d t he f i ne, but t hat t he Town of

New Bedf ord had mi st akenl y f ai l ed t o r ecor d t he payment . I d.

Four pol i ce of f i cer s, i ncl udi ng def endant of f i cer s Davi d

Massi and J ames Por t er , ar r i ved at t he pl ai nt i f f s' 1 home t o ser ve

t he war r ant at appr oxi mat el y 6: 25 a. m. , t he mor ni ng of J une 6,

2011. See i d. at 163. The of f i cers were aware t hat Hunt had been

ar r est ed appr oxi mat el y two mont hs ear l i er f or hi s i nvol vement " i n

a maj or cocai ne and her oi n di st r i but i on r i ng i n Cape Cod. " See i d.

at 162 n. 1. Of f i cer s Massi and Por t er knocked on t he f r ont door ,

whi l e t he t wo ot her of f i cer s wat ched t he rear of t he house.

Hunt ' s wi f e, who answer ed t he f r ont door , l ed Of f i cer s

Por t er and Massi t o t he bedr oom where Hunt was si t t i ng on t he bed.

When i nf ormed t hat he was under ar r est , Hunt r equest ed t hat he be

handcuf f ed wi t h hi s hands i n f r ont of hi m. I d. at 163. Hunt

expl ai ned t hat he had under gone surger y on hi s s t omach t he week

bef ore, and cl ai med t hat he coul d not be handcuf f ed wi t h hi s hands

behi nd hi m. I d. Of f i cer Massi asked Hunt t o l i f t hi s shi r t , and

t hen l ooked at hi s st omach. We t ake as t r ue Hunt ' s t est i mony t hat

1 We r ef er t o Mr . Hunt as "Hunt , " and Mr . and Mr s. Hunt as" pl ai nt i f f s. "

-3-


4/22

t he of f i cer s woul d have seen a "bi g, l ong, r ed mar k. " The of f i cer s

sai d t hey saw not hi ng whi ch di ssuaded t hemf r omt he usual pr act i ce

of handcuf f i ng behi nd t he back. They bel i eved t hat "no i nj ur y

coul d r esul t " f r om doi ng so. I d. I n r esponse t o t he pl ai nt i f f s'

cont i nued r equest s t hat Hunt be handcuf f ed wi t h hi s hands i n f r ont

of hi m, Of f i cer Massi st at ed: "We can' t do i t t hat way. That ' s not

possi bl e. "

The di st r i ct cour t i nf er r ed t her e was no r esi st ance t o

ar r est , because, " [ a] ccor di ng t o Mr . Hunt ' s t est i mony, he di d not

t r y t o def end or pr otect hi msel f because he was t oo weak due t o t he

sur ger y. " 2 I d. But , Hunt ' s opposi t i on t o summar y j udgment i s

cl ear t hat he r esi st ed when hi s r equest was deni ed and he was t ol d

t o put hi s ar ms behi nd hi m. I n t hi s appeal t oo, t he pl ai nt i f f s

speci f y t hat Hunt di d not r esi st "unt i l he was t ol d hi s ar ms needed

t o be pl aced behi nd hi m. "

2 On an i nt er l ocut or y appeal of a di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al ofqual i f i ed i mmuni t y, we gener al l y "accept as gi ven t he f act s t hatt he di st r i ct cour t r ul ed coul d be f ound by a r easonabl e j ur yvi ewi ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f . "Snyder v. Gaudet , 756 F. 3d 30, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . However , " ' weneed not accept [ t he pl ai nt i f f ' s] ver si on of event s i f i t i sbl at ant l y cont r adi ct ed by t he evi dence. ' " Penn v. Escor si o, 764

F. 3d 102, 105 n. 2 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng Medi na- Ri ver a v. MVM,I nc. , 713 F. 3d 132, 136 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ksomi t t ed) ; see al so Scot t v. Har r i s, 550 U. S. 372, 378- 81 ( 2007)( r ef usi ng t o adopt t he pl ai nt i f f ' s ver si on of f act s when i t was"cl ear l y cont r adi ct [ ed] " by t he vi deot ape of t he event s) . I n t hi scase, Hunt ' s t est i mony that he was t oo weak t o resi st i s " bl at ant l ycont r adi ct ed" by hi s own concessi ons and t he r ecor d evi dence.

-4-


5/22

Event s t hen moved ver y qui ckl y. Hunt ' s wi f e t est i f i ed

t hat Hunt got of f t he bed wi t h hi s hands i n f r ont of hi m.

Accor di ng t o t he pl ai nt i f f s, t he of f i cer s pushed Hunt ont o t he bed

and t hen ont o t he f l oor . Hunt t est i f i ed at hi s subsequent st at e

cri mi nal t r i al on char ges f or r esi st i ng ar r est and hi s pur por t ed

assaul t and bat t er y on an of f i cer dur i ng t he J une 6 event s. He

admi t t ed t hat hi s demeanor changed f r ombei ng cal mwhen he made hi s

r equest t o bei ng angr y af t er he was br ought t o t he f l oor . Hi s wi f e

agr eed t hat he was "ext r emel y upset . " A vi deo made by t he

pl ai nt i f f s' son of a por t i on of t he event s showed t he of f i cer s and

Hunt st r uggl i ng on t he f l oor f or f i f t een t o t went y seconds whi l e

t he of f i cer s t r i ed t o handcuf f Hunt . The of f i cer s kneed Hunt i n

t he l eg and t he back dur i ng t hi s scuf f l e. At or al ar gument , t he

pl ai nt i f f s' counsel conceded t hat t he of f i cer s kneed Hunt i n t he

cour se of secur i ng t he handcuf f s. The def endant s est i mat e, and t he

pl ai nt i f f s do not cont est , t hat i t t ook t hem"maybe f i f t een seconds

or so" t o successf ul l y handcuf f Hunt af t er he r ef used t o be

handcuf f ed wi t h hi s hands behi nd hi s back. Af t er bei ng handcuf f ed,

Hunt was t aken t o t he pol i ce st at i on.

Due to Hunt ' s compl ai nt s about pai n, he was dr i ven by

ambul ance f r om t he pol i ce st at i on t o t he Fal mout h Hospi t al , wher e

he r emai ned f or appr oxi matel y t en hour s. I d. The emergency r oom

r eport st ates t hat nothi ng coul d have been damaged dur i ng t he

al t er cat i on because Hunt ' s r ecent sur ger y was a l apar oscopi c l ysi s

-5-


6/22

of adhesi ons. I d. He was r el eased f r om t he hospi t al on hi s own

r ecogni zance. I d.

The pol i ce of f i cer s subsequent l y char ged Hunt wi t h

r esi st i ng ar r est and wi t h assaul t and bat t er y on a pol i ce of f i cer .

I d. Bot h a cl er k magi st r at e and t he Di st r i ct At t or ney' s of f i ce

f ound pr obabl e cause f or t he char ges t o go f orward. On Sept ember

25, 2012, af t er a t wo- day t r i al , Hunt was f ound not gui l t y. See

i d.

Hunt al l eges t hat he suf f er ed f r om knee and back pai n

af t er t he ar r est , embar r assment af t er t he l ocal newspaper cover age

of t he ar r est , and emot i onal di st r ess whenever he now sees Of f i cer s

Massi or Por t er . I d. I t i s undi sput ed t hat Hunt suf f er ed no

physi cal i nj ur y as a r esul t of t he handcuf f i ng ot her t han what ever

t empor ar y pai n he exper i enced i nci dent t o t he ar r est .

I I . Pr ocedur al Backgr ound

The pl ai nt i f f s brought t hi s l awsui t agai nst Of f i cer

Massi , Of f i cer Por t er , and t he Town of Fal mout h on March 21, 2013

f or vi ol at i ons of 42 U. S. C. 1983, wi t h addi t i onal st at e l aw

cl ai ms. We addr ess onl y t hose cl ai ms that sur vi ved summary

j udgment despi t e t he def ense of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. 3 Under 1983,

3 On J anuar y 22, 2014, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t hedef endant s' mot i on f or summary j udgment f or t he f ol l owi ng cl ai ms:( 1) a Monel l cl ai m agai nst t he Town of Fal mout h under 1983; ( 2)negl i gence/ vi car i ous l i abi l i t y agai nst t he Town of Fal mout h; ( 3)conspi r acy agai nst t he i ndi vi dual of f i cer s and t he Town of Fal mout hunder 1983; ( 4) vi ol at i on of t he MCRA agai nst t he Town ofFal mout h onl y; ( 5) f al se i mpr i sonment agai nst t he i ndi vi dual

-6-


7/22

t he pl ai nt i f f s br ought cl ai ms agai nst t he i ndi vi dual of f i cer s f or

excessi ve f or ce and mal i ci ous pr osecut i on. I n addi t i on, t he

pl ai nt i f f s br ought st at e l aw cl ai ms f or bat t er y, mal i ci ous

pr osecut i on, and vi ol at i on of t he MCRA.

Focusi ng on t he cl ai m t hat t he of f i cer s had used

excessi ve f or ce, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he of f i cer s' mot i on f or

summary j udgment af t er concl udi ng t hat t hey were not ent i t l ed t o

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. Hunt , 5 F. Supp. 3d at 167. Fi ndi ng t hat t he

"MCRA cl ai ms ar e subj ect t o t he same st andard of i mmuni t y f or

pol i ce of f i cer s t hat i s used f or cl ai ms asser t ed under sect i on

1983, " t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed summary j udgment on t he

pl ai nt i f f s' MCRA cl ai m f or t he same r easons as t he pl ai nt i f f s'

excessi ve f or ce cl ai m. I d. at 169. Havi ng det er mi ned t hat t he

of f i cer s "pot ent i al l y used excessi ve f or ce when ar r est i ng [ Hunt ] "

such t hat qual i f i ed i mmuni t y di d not appl y, t he di st r i ct cour t

r easoned t hat i t must deny summary j udgment on t he pl ai nt i f f s'

cl ai m f or bat t ery as wel l . I d. at 167. Fi nal l y, t he di s tr i ct

cour t not ed t hat " t her e ar e di sput ed i ssues of mat er i al f act as t o

whet her t he pol i ce of f i cer s had pr obabl e cause t o i ni t i at e

pr osecut i on agai nst Mr . Hunt f or r esi st i ng ar r est , t hus pr ecl udi ng

summar y j udgment " f or t he pl ai nt i f f s' mal i ci ous pr osecut i on cl ai ms

of f i cer s and t he Town of Fal mout h; and ( 6) i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i onof emot i onal di st r ess agai nst t he i ndi vi dual of f i cer s.

-7-


8/22

as t o t he char ges br ought by t he pol i ce of f i cer s af t er t he

al t er cat i on. I d. at 168.

Thi s appeal f ol l owed. The def endant s ar gue t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n denyi ng t hei r mot i on f or summar y j udgment

on Hunt ' s excessi ve f or ce cl ai m si nce t hei r use of f or ce was

r easonabl e, and t hey di d not vi ol at e any cl ear l y est abl i shed

const i t ut i onal r i ght . They say t hey ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y. The def endant s ar gue t hat i f we r ever se t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deci si on on t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai mf or excessi ve f or ce, t hen

t he di smi ssal of t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms f or bat t er y, vi ol at i on of

t he MCRA, and mal i ci ous prosecut i on must f ol l ow sui t .

We concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n denyi ng

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y t o t he def endant s f or t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai m of

excessi ve f or ce. When def i ned at t he appr opr i at e l evel of

speci f i ci t y, t he necessar y quest i on i s whet her Hunt had a cl ear l y

est abl i shed r i ght t o have hi s hands cuf f ed i n f r ont of hi m due t o

an al l eged i nj ur y despi t e t he of f i cer s' j udgment cal l t o t he

cont r ar y. Ther e i s no such cl ear l y est abl i shed r i ght . I nst ead,

Fi r st Ci r cui t pr ecedent makes cl ear t hat t he of f i cer s' deci si on t o

handcuf f an ar r est ee accor di ng t o st andar d pol i ce pr act i ce i s a

j udgment cal l t hat must be anal yzed based on t he t ot al i t y of t he

ci r cumst ances. Based on t he f act s her e, no r easonabl e of f i cer

woul d have bel i eved t hat hi s or her deci si on t o handcuf f Hunt

accor di ng t o standar d pol i ce pr act i ce vi ol at ed t he const i t ut i onal

-8-


9/22

pr ohi bi t i on on excess i ve f orce. We agr ee wi t h t he def endant s t hat

r ever sal of t he pl ai nt i f f s' st at e l aw cl ai ms f or bat t er y and

vi ol at i on of t he MCRA necessari l y f ol l ows t hi s concl usi on, but we

f i nd we l ack j ur i sdi ct i on over t he deni al of i mmuni t y on t he

mal i ci ous pr osecut i on cl ai m.

I I I . Feder al Cl ai ms

A. Appel l at e J ur i sdi ct i on

"Or di nar i l y, we hear appeal s onl y f r om f i nal or der s and

deci si ons. " Cady v. Wal sh, 753 F. 3d 348, 358 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)

( ci t i ng 28 U. S. C. 1291) . "An or der denyi ng a mot i on f or summar y

j udgment i s gener al l y not a f i nal deci si on wi t hi n t he meani ng of

1291 and i s t hus gener al l y not i mmedi at el y appeal abl e. " Pl umhof f

v. Ri ckar d, 134 S. Ct . 2012, 2018 ( 2014) . Under t he col l at er al

or der doct r i ne, however , a di st r i ct cour t ' s pr e- t r i al deni al of

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i s i mmedi at el y appeal abl e t o t he extent t hat i t

t ur ns on l egal , r at her t han f act ual , gr ounds. See i d. at 2018- 19;

Penn v. Escor si o, 764 F. 3d 102, 109- 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . We r evi ew

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s l egal concl usi ons, based on t he undi sput ed and

uncont r adi ct ed f act s, de novo. See Snyder v. Gaudet , 756 F. 3d 30,

33 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

B. Excessi ve For ce

As t he Supr eme Cour t r ecent l y r ei t er at ed, " [ a] gover nment

of f i ci al sued under 1983 i s ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y unl ess

t he of f i ci al vi ol at ed a st at ut or y or const i t ut i onal r i ght t hat was

-9-


10/22

cl ear l y est abl i shed at t he t i me of t he chal l enged conduct . "

Car r ol l v. Car man, 135 S. Ct . 348, 350 ( 2014) ( per cur i am) . "Thi s

doct r i ne ' gi ves gover nment of f i ci al s br eat hi ng r oom t o make

r easonabl e but mi st aken j udgment s, ' and ' pr ot ect s al l but t he

pl ai nl y i ncompet ent or t hose who knowi ngl y vi ol at e t he l aw. ' " I d.

( quot i ng Ashcr of t v. al - Ki dd, 131 S. Ct . 2074, 2085 ( 2011) )

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

A f ami l i ar t wo- st ep i nqui r y det er mi nes whet her t he

def endant s are ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y:

Fi r st , we i nqui r e whet her t he f act s, t akenmost f avorabl y t o t he par t y opposi ng summaryj udgment , make out a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on.Second, we i nqui r e whet her t he vi ol at ed r i ghtwas cl ear l y est abl i shed at t he t i me t hat t heof f endi ng conduct occur r ed. The second,"cl ear l y est abl i shed, " st ep i t sel f encompassest wo quest i ons: whet her t he cont our s of t her i ght , i n gener al , wer e suf f i ci ent l y cl ear ,and whet her , under t he speci f i c f act s of t hecase, a r easonabl e def endant woul d haveunder st ood t hat he was vi ol at i ng t he ri ght .

For d v. Bender , 768 F. 3d 15, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) ; see al so Rocket Lear ni ng, I nc. v. Ri ver a- Snchez, 715

F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . I t i s i n our di scret i on not t o engage

i n t he f i r st i nqui r y, but t o go di r ect l y t o t he second, as we do

her e. See Pear son v. Cal l ahan, 555 U. S. 223, 236 ( 2009) ; Loper a v.

Town of Covent r y, 640 F. 3d 388, 396 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

We st ar t by def i ni ng t he r i ght at i ssue at "an

appr opr i at e l evel of gener al i t y. " Br ady v. Di l l , 187 F. 3d 104, 115

( 1st Ci r . 1999) . Ci t i ng Gr ahamv. Connor , 490 U. S. 386 ( 1989) , t he

-10-


11/22

pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat "[ t ] her e i s l i t t l e doubt t hat pol i ce must

r ef r ai n f r om use of excessi ve f or ce. " Thi s "cast s t oo br oad a

net . " See Suboh v. Di st . At t or ney' s Of f i ce of t he Suf f ol k Di st . ,

298 F. 3d 81, 93 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . The Supr eme Cour t agr eed t hat

"t her e i s no doubt t hat Gr aham . . . cl ear l y est abl i shes t he

gener al pr oposi t i on t hat use of f or ce i s cont r ar y t o t he Four t h

Amendment i f i t i s excess i ve under obj ect i ve st andar ds of

r easonabl eness. " Sauci er v. Kat z, 533 U. S. 194, 201- 02 ( 2001) ,

abr ogated on other gr ounds by Pearson v. Cal l ahan, 555 U. S. 223

( 2009) . "Yet , " t he Supr eme Cour t expl i ci t l y hel d, "t hat i s not

enough" t o def eat qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. I d. at 202.

The cl ear l y est abl i shed i nqui r y must be under t aken " ' i n

a mor e par t i cul ar i zed, and hence mor e r el evant , sense. ' " I d.

( quot i ng Anderson v. Cr ei ght on, 483 U. S. 635, 640 ( 1987) ) . We must

anal yze whet her t he l aw i s cl ear l y est abl i shed "' i n l i ght of t he

speci f i c cont ext of t he case, not as a br oad gener al pr oposi t i on. ' "

Br osseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194, 198 ( 2004) ( quot i ng Sauci er , 533

U. S. at 201) ; see al so al - Ki dd, 131 S. Ct . at 2084 ( "We have

r epeat edl y t ol d cour t s . . . not t o def i ne cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw

at a hi gh l evel of gener al i t y. ") . I n t hi s case, t he r el evant

quest i on i s not whether t he Four t h Amendment general l y pr ohi bi t ed

excessi ve f or ce. The r el evant quest i on i s whet her , i n 2011, Hunt

had a cl ear l y est abl i shed r i ght t o be handcuf f ed wi t h hi s hands i n

f r ont of hi m when i t woul d not be obvi ous t o a r easonabl e of f i cer

-11-


12/22

t hat Hunt ' s abdomi nal scar woul d pr event hi mf r omput t i ng hi s hands

behi nd hi s back. The ensui ng event s, i n whi ch Hunt does not cl ai m

t o have cooper at ed, occur r ed i n t he cour se of t he handcuf f i ng wi t h

hi s hands behi nd hi s back. 4

To be cl ear l y est abl i shed, t he cont our s of t hi s r i ght

must have been "suf f i ci ent l y def i ni t e t hat any reasonabl e of f i ci al

i n t he def endant ' s shoes woul d have underst ood t hat he was

vi ol at i ng i t . " Pl umhof f , 134 S. Ct . at 2023. "I n ot her wor ds,

' exi st i ng pr ecedent must have pl aced t he . . . const i t ut i onal

quest i on beyond debat e. ' " Car r ol l , 135 S. Ct . at 350 ( quot i ng al -

Ki dd, 131 S. Ct . at 2083) .

The di st r i ct cour t under t ook t hi s anal ysi s at t he

appr opr i at e l evel of speci f i ci t y, but er r ed i n i t s concl usi on t hat

Hunt had a cl ear l y est abl i shed r i ght t o be handcuf f ed wi t h hi s

hands i n f r ont of hi mdue t o an al l eged i nj ur y, "even i f t he i nj ur y

i s not vi si bl e. " See Hunt , 5 F. Supp. 3d at 166. The di st r i ct

cour t r el i ed on f our cases t o r each t hi s concl usi on. I d. Two ar e

easi l y di st i ngui shabl e f r om t he pr esent case si nce t hey i nvol ved

much mor e ser i ous, and vi si bl e, i nj ur i es t hat woul d have been

4 To t he ext ent t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s at t empt t o separ at e t he

of f i cer s' deci si on t o handcuf f Hunt f r omt hei r use of knee st r i kesi n or der t o do so, t he pl ai nt i f f s have pr ovi ded no case l aw cl ear l yest abl i shi ng t hat t he l at t er was unconst i t ut i onal . See, e. g. ,Goodr i ch v. Ever et t , 193 F. App' x 551, 556 ( 6t h Ci r . 2006) ( f i ndi ngno excessi ve f orce when " t he kneei ng and ki cki ng occur r ed not when[ t he ar r est ee] was neut r al i zed, but whi l e t he of f i cer s wer ehandcuf f i ng hi m") .

-12-


13/22

exacer bat ed by t he st andar d pol i ce pr ocedur e f or handcuf f i ng. 5 The

ot her t wo di st r i ct cour t opi ni ons, whi ch bot h acknowl edge a debat e

on t he i ssue, ar e si mpl y i nsuf f i ci ent t o show t hat t he l aw was

cl ear l y est abl i shed f or i mmuni t y pur poses.

The f i r st , Car on v. Hest er , No. Ci v. 00- 394- M, 2001 WL

1568761 ( D. N. H. Nov. 13, 2001) , act ual l y suppor t s a gr ant of

i mmuni t y f or t he def endant s i n t hi s case. Ther e, t he di st r i ct

cour t f ound i t "unl i kel y" t hat a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on occur r ed

when an of f i cer handcuf f ed an al l egedl y i nj ur ed ar r est ee wi t h hi s

hands behi nd hi s back, but f ound a mat er i al f act ual di sput e on t he

i ssue. I d. at *6, *11. Never t hel ess, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat

t he of f i cer was ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y si nce no pr ecedent

cl ear l y est abl i shed t he pl ai nt i f f ' s r i ght "not t o be handcuf f ed

behi nd hi s back af t er he al l egedl y i nf or med [ t he of f i cer ] of hi s

shoul der i nj ur y. " I d. at *8, *10. Al t hough t he Fi r st Ci r cui t had

not yet addr essed t he i ssue, "sever al ot her cour t s . . . [ had]

concl uded, at a mi ni mum, t hat a suspect who di spl ays no vi si bl e

si gns of bei ng unusual l y vul ner abl e or f r agi l e, i s not subj ect ed t o

excessi ve f or ce when a pol i ce of f i cer uses cust omar y, r easonabl e

5 I n Howar d v. Di cker son, 34 F. 3d 978 ( 10t h Ci r . 1994) , t hepl ai nt i f f t ol d t he of f i cer s t hat she had r ecent l y under gone neck

surgery, as evi denced by t he neck br ace she was wear i ng. I d.

at979. I n Eason v. Anoka- Hennepi n E. Met r o Narcot i cs & Vi ol entCr i mes Task For ce, No. Ci v. 00- 311 PAM/ SRN, 2002 WL 1303023 ( D.Mi nn. J une 6, 2002) , t he pl ai nt i f f , who of f er ed no r esi st ance, hadhi s st er num "wi r ed t oget her " af t er a recent hear t sur ger y and t heof f i cer s had di f f i cul t y movi ng hi s ar ms behi nd hi s back. I d. at*6.

-13-


14/22

f or ce i n appl yi ng handcuf f s or ot her wi se ef f ect i ng an ar r est . " I d.

at *9. 6

I n t he second, Acet o v. Kachaj i an, 240 F. Supp. 2d 121

( D. Mass. 2003) , t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat pol i ce of f i cer s may

have used const i t ut i onal l y excessi ve f or ce, and wer e not ent i t l ed

t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y, when t hey handcuf f ed "a non- t hr eat eni ng,

non- f l i ght - r i sk, cooper at i ve ar r est ee f or a mi nor cr i me" wi t h her

hands behi nd her back despi t e her al l eged shoul der i nj ur y. I d. at

124- 27. The di st r i ct cour t i n Acet o st r essed t hat t he pl ai nt i f f

was ar r est ed f or "f ai l i ng t o pay a t hi r t een- year - ol d speedi ng

ci t at i on, a mi nor of f ense t hat di d not r ai se concer ns of vi ol ence

or ot her exi genci es; " t hat t her e was "no evi dence t hat Acet o posed

a f l i ght r i sk, or a saf et y r i sk t o t he of f i cer s or anyone el se; "

t hat Acet o was " gener al l y cooper at i ve; " and t hat Acet o put t he

6

The cour t i n Car on expl ai ned as a pol i cy mat t er t hat ,

cour t s do not want t o vest suspect s wi t hcasual vet o power over ef f or t s t o handcuf ft hem si mpl y by cl ai mi ng t o have a bad wr i st ,ar m, shoul der , back, et c. To r equi r e pol i ceof f i cer s t o uni ver sal l y credi t suchunsuppor t ed cl ai ms, or embar k upon ani nvest i gat i on i nt o t hose cl ai ms, woul dneedl essl y i nt er f er e wi t h t hei r dut i es and,perhaps, expose t hemand members of t he publ i ct o unnecessar y ri sk i n r api dl y evol vi ng

s i t uat i ons.

2001 WL 1568761, at *10. Li kewi se, t he El event h Ci r cui t has not edt hat "a pol i ce of f i cer need not credi t ever yt hi ng a suspect t el l shi m. Thi s i dea i s especi al l y t r ue when t he of f i cer i s i n t hepr ocess of handcuf f i ng a suspect . " Rodr i guez v. Far r el l , 294 F. 3d1276, 1278 ( 11t h Ci r . 2002) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

-14-


15/22

of f i cer s on not i ce of her shoul der i nj ur y even i f i t was not

ot her wi se vi si bl e. I d. at 125. The di st r i ct cour t i n Acet o was of

t he vi ew t hat t he publ i shed case l aw cl ear l y est abl i shed t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s "r i ght t o be handcuf f ed wi t h her ar ms i n f r ont of her

even i f t he i nj ur y i s not vi si bl e, " but acknowl edged t hat "var i ous

' unpubl i shed' appel l at e opi ni ons . . . suppor t [ ed] t he posi t i ons of

bot h par t i es. " I d. at 126- 27.

As not ed by bot h of t hese cases, ot her ci r cui t s have

r eached di f f er ent hol di ngs on t he const i t ut i onal i t y of handcuf f i ng

an al l egedl y i nj ur ed ar r est ee behi nd hi s or her back. I n Wal t on v.

Ci t y of Sout hf i el d, 995 F. 2d 1331 ( 6t h Ci r . 1993) , super seded by

st at ut e on ot her gr ounds as r ecogni zed i n Li ver mor e ex r el Rohm v.

Lubel an, 476 F. 3d 397 ( 6t h Ci r . 2007) , f or exampl e, an ar r est ee f or

dr i vi ng wi t h a suspended l i cense t ol d t he of f i cer t hat she had a

sor e shoul der and asked not t o be handcuf f ed wi t h her hands behi nd

her . I d. at 1333- 34. The Si xt h Ci r cui t hel d t hat " [ a] n excessi ve

use of f or ce cl ai mcoul d be pr emi sed on [ t he of f i cer ' s] handcuf f i ng

[ t he pl ai nt i f f ] i f he knew t hat she had an i nj ur ed ar m and i f he

bel i eved t hat she posed no t hr eat t o hi m. " I d. at 1342; see al so

Cr ooks v. Hami l t on Cnt y. , Ohi o, 458 F. App' x 548, 550 ( 6t h Ci r .

2012) ( hol di ng same when t he def endant handcuf f ed a 65- year - ol d

ar t hr i t i c woman f or a non- vi ol ent cr i me wi t h her hands behi nd her

back despi t e "per si st ent cl ai ms of pai n, " whi ch caused t he woman t o

suf f er a br oken r i b) .

-15-


16/22

The opposi t e r esul t was r eached i n Wel l s v. Okl a. ex r el .

Dep' t of Pub. Saf ety, 97 F. 3d 1465, 1996 WL 557722 ( 10t h Ci r . Sept .

30, 1996) ( unpubl i shed t abl e deci si on) , when a "cooper at i ve and

non- t hr eat eni ng" ar r est ee f or a mi sdemeanor t ol d t he pol i ce t hat

" [ hi s ar m] was f ul l of pl at es and scr ews, " and he coul d not put i t

behi nd hi s back. I d. at *1, *3. The Tent h Ci r cui t f ound no

const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on f or "put t i ng handcuf f s on a pot ent i al l y

f r agi l e ar r est ee wi t hout use of abnor mal f or ce. " I d. at *3; see

al so Mor r eal e v. Ci t y of Cr i ppl e Cr eek, 113 F. 3d 1246, 1997 WL

290976, at *5- 6 ( 10t h Ci r . May 27, 1997) ( unpubl i shed t abl e

deci si on) ( f i ndi ng no const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on when of f i cer s

handcuf f ed a non- t hr eat eni ng and cooper at i ve ar r est ee wi t h her

hands behi nd her back despi t e her st at ed shoul der i nj ur y) .

I n t hi s ci r cui t , t he cont r ol l i ng case i s Cal vi v. Knox

Count y, 470 F. 3d 422 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) , i n whi ch we f ound no

const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on when of f i cer s handcuf f ed an al l egedl y

i nj ur ed ar r est ee accor di ng t o st andar d pol i ce pr act i ce. I d. at

428. Ther e, pol i ce of f i cer s responded t o a r epor t of a woman,

Cal vi , br andi shi ng a kni f e i n a r esi dence. I d. at 425. Cal vi ' s

l andl or d advi sed t he pol i ce of f i cer s t hat Cal vi had r ecent l y

undergone el bow sur gery and asked t hem t o be gent l e. I d. The

pol i ce of f i cer "di d not obser ve any debi l i t at i ng condi t i on, " i d. ,

and handcuf f ed Cal vi accor di ng t o t he " [ s] t andar d pol i ce pr act i ce"

wi t h her hands behi nd her back, i d. at 428. We hel d t hat " [ t he

-16-


17/22

of f i cer ' s] deci si on not t o devi at e f r om t hi s pr acti ce was a

j udgment cal l , pur e and si mpl e. " I d. "The t ot al i t y of t he

ci r cumst ances af f or d[ ed] no l egal l y suf f i ci ent basi s f or a f i ndi ng

t hat [ t he of f i cer ' s] handcuf f i ng of Cal vi r epr esent ed a

const i t ut i onal l y pr oscr i bed use of excessi ve f or ce. " I d. ( ci t i ng

J ackson v. Ci t y of Br emer t on, 268 F. 3d 646, 653 ( 9th Ci r . 2001) ) .

The pl ai nt i f f s poi nt t o no post - Cal vi case t hat woul d

have put t he of f i cer s on not i ce t hat t hei r deci si on t o handcuf f

Hunt wi t h hi s hands behi nd hi s back was not a "j udgment cal l , " but

cl ear l y vi ol at ed t he Const i t ut i on. Nor coul d t hey. Li ke t he

Second Ci r cui t , " [ w] e ar e awar e of no case . . . wher e a cour t hel d

t hat i gnor i ng an uncooper at i ve suspect ' s cl ai mof i nvi si bl e i nj ur y

( such t hat handcuf f i ng coul d be harmf ul ) made dur i ng t he cour se of

handcuf f i ng const i t ut ed excessi ve f or ce. " Beckl es v. Ci t y of N. Y. ,

492 F. App' x 181, 183 ( 2d Ci r . 2012) .

On t he f act s of t hi s case, a reasonabl e of f i cer woul d not

have under st ood hi s or her deci si on t o handcuf f Hunt wi t h hi s ar ms

behi nd hi s back t o const i t ut e excessi ve f or ce. The of f i cer s knew

of Hunt ' s ser i ous and r ecent cr i mi nal hi st or y, and t hey encount er ed

some admi t t ed r esi st ance. They had al so l ooked at t he si t e of hi s

r ecent surger y and det er mi ned that no new i nj ur y or exacerbat i on

woul d r esul t f r omt he st andar d t echni que f or handcuf f i ng. Nor was

t hi s det er mi nat i on unr easonabl e si nce Hunt ' s scar was on hi s

st omach. Most of t he cases f i ndi ng excessi ve f or ce i nci dent t o

-17-


18/22

handcuf f i ng i nvol ve i nj ur i es t o t he shoul der or ar m. See, e. g. ,

Acet o, 240 F. Supp. 2d at 124- 25. Af t er Cal vi , a r easonabl e

of f i cer woul d not have under st ood t hi s j udgment cal l t o be a

vi ol at i on of t he Const i t ut i on. For t hese r easons, t he def endant s

ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on t he pl ai nt i f f s' excessi ve

f or ce cl ai m.

C. Mal i ci ous Pr osecut i on

I n cont r ast wi t h t he excessi ve f or ce cl ai m, we do not

have appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on over t he f eder al mal i ci ous pr osecut i on

cl ai m. The pl ai nt i f f s br ought t he f eder al mal i ci ous pr osecut i on

cl ai m agai nst t he def endant s under 1983 based on Hunt ' s

subsequent pr osecut i on on char ges t hat he had bot h resi st ed ar r est

and t hat he had commi t t ed assaul t and bat t er y on a pol i ce of f i cer

dur i ng hi s ar r est on J une 6. 7 The def endant s ar gued t hat probabl e

cause had exi st ed t o pur sue t he st at e char ges agai nst Hunt , and so

t hey wer e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y.

The di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of i mmuni t y r est ed on i t s

f i ndi ng t hat t her e wer e "di sput ed i ssues of mat er i al f act as t o

whet her t he pol i ce of f i cer s had pr obabl e cause t o i ni t i at e

7 The di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y di f f er ent i at ed bet ween t he

pl ai nt i f f s' mal i ci ous pr osecut i on cl ai ms based on Hunt ' s J une 6,2011, arr est , and hi s subsequent pr osecut i on on char ges t hat Hunthad bot h assaul t ed an of f i cer and r esi st ed ar r est on J une 6. Hunt ,5 F. Supp. 3d at 167. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he def endant s'mot i on f or summar y j udgment on t he pl ai nt i f f s' mal i ci ouspr osecut i on cl ai ms t o t he extent t hat t hey r el i ed on t he f or mer ,and t he pl ai nt i f f s do not appeal t hi s deci si on. I d. at 168.

-18-


19/22

pr osecut i on agai nst Mr . Hunt f or r esi st i ng ar r est . " Hunt , 5 F.

Supp. 3d at 168. The cour t sai d not hi ng about t he assaul t and

bat t er y char ge and di d no f ur t her anal ysi s. See i d. We t ake i t

t hat t he cour t i mpl i ci t l y f ound t hat t her e was a di sput e over t he

assaul t and bat t er y char ge. Af t er al l , at deposi t i on, Hunt deni ed

st r i ki ng t he of f i cer s, and he has not made di f f er ent st at ement s i n

hi s pl eadi ngs or on appeal .

The def endant s' ar gument i gnor es t he f act t hat t he st at e

charges t hey br ought accused Hunt of commi t t i ng assaul t and bat t ery

on an of f i cer , and i n so doi ng, went wel l beyond char gi ng hi m

mer el y wi t h r esi st i ng ar r est . They do not expl ai n how t her e i s

appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on over t he cl ear di sput e of f act over Hunt ' s

cl ai m t hat he was mal i ci ousl y pr osecut ed f or assaul t and bat t er y,

and t hat t her e was no pr obabl e cause f or t hose char ges. Thi s

di sput e exi st s r egar dl ess of whet her t her e was pr obabl e cause f or

t he r esi st i ng ar r est por t i on of t he st at e char ges.

Whet her or not we mi ght have had appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on

had t he pr osecut i on been onl y f or r esi st i ng ar r est gi ven our

ear l i er concl usi ons, we choose not t o di vi de t he mal i ci ous

pr osecut i on cl ai m. We have no pur e i ssue of l aw; r at her , t her e i s

a mat er i al di sput e of f act . The def endant s wi sel y have not ar gued

t hat a r easonabl e of f i cer woul d t hi nk t hat he coul d char ge an

ar r est ee wi t h assaul t and bat t er y on t he of f i cer when t he ar r est ee

di d not st r i ke t he of f i cer i n t he cour se of t he ar r est ees' r ef usal

-19-


20/22

t o cooper at e. We l ack j ur i sdi ct i on on i nt er l ocut or y appeal t o

r evi ew pur el y f act ual di sput es of evi dent i ar y suf f i ci ency. See

Penn, 764 F. 3d at 110.

I V. Remai ni ng St ate Law Cl ai ms

"Gener al l y, i nt er l ocut or y r evi ew of a deci si on denyi ng

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y under 1983 ' does not i n and of i t sel f conf er

j ur i sdi ct i on over ot her cont est ed i ssues i n t he case. ' " Suboh, 298

F. 3d at 97 ( quot i ng Roque- Rodr i guez v. Lema Moya, 926 F. 2d 103, 105

& n. 2 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ) . We may nevert hel ess exerci se pendent

appel l at e j ur i sdi cti on over t he pl ai nt i f f s' r emai ni ng cl ai ms i f t he

par t y seeki ng j ur i sdi ct i on shows "t hat t he i ssues ar e ' i next r i cabl y

i nt er t wi ned wi t h [ t he di st r i ct ] cour t ' s deci si on t o deny t he

i ndi vi dual def endant s' qual i f i ed i mmuni t y mot i ons, or t hat r evi ew

of t he [ deci si on f or whi ch pendent j ur i sdi ct i on i s sought ] was

necessar y to ensure meani ngf ul r evi ew of t he [ qual i f i ed i mmuni t y

deci si on] . ' " I d. ( quot i ng Swi nt v. Chamber s Cnt y. Comm' n, 514 U. S.

35, 51 ( 1995) ) ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) . Thi s t est i s sat i sf i ed

her e f or t wo of t he pl ai nt i f f s' st at e l aw cl ai ms.

The pl ai nt i f f s' MCRA cl ai m i s subj ect t o t he same

st andar d of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y f or pol i ce of f i cer s t hat appl i es f or

1983 cl ai ms. Rai che v. Pi et r oski , 623 F. 3d 30, 40 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) ( ci t i ng Duar t e v. Heal y, 537 N. E. 2d 1230, 1232 ( Mass. 1989) ) .

"Because t he pol i ce of f i cer s [ wer e] not pr ot ect ed by qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y wi t h r espect t o t he sect i on 1983 excessi ve f or ce cl ai m, "

-20-


21/22

t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat t hey wer e al so not pr ot ect ed by

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y wi t h r espect t o t he MCRA excessi ve f or ce cl ai m.

Hunt , 5 F. Supp. 3d at 169. The di st r i ct cour t ' s own l ogi c makes

t he cl ai ms " i next r i cabl y i nt er t wi ned, " and we r ever se t he deni al of

summar y j udgment on t he MCRA cl ai m.

The det er mi nat i on of t he r easonabl eness of t he f or ce used

under 1983 al so "cont r ol s [ t he] det er mi nat i on of t he

r easonabl eness of t he f orce used under t he common l aw assaul t and

bat t er y cl ai ms. " Rai che, 623 F. 3d at 40. The cour t deni ed t he

of f i cer s' mot i on f or summar y j udgment on t he pl ai nt i f f s' bat t er y

cl ai m speci f i cal l y because i t had deni ed t he of f i cer s' mot i on f or

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y under 1983. Hunt , 5 F. Supp. 3d at 167. I n

l i ght of our concl usi on t hat a r easonabl e of f i cer woul d have

under st ood that t he def endant s wer e j ust i f i ed i n handcuf f i ng Hunt

wi t h hi s hands behi nd hi s back, we concl ude t hat t he def endant s

cannot be l i abl e f or t he "i nt ent i onal and unj ust i f i ed use of f or ce

upon t he per son of anot her , " as r equi r ed f or t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai m

of i nt ent i onal bat t er y, Commonweal t h v. Por r o, 939 N. E. 2d 1157,

1162 ( Mass. 2010) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) , and r ever se the deni al of summar y j udgment on t hi s cl ai m

as wel l .

Fi nal l y, havi ng r emanded t he f eder al cl ai m of mal i ci ous

pr osecut i on, we r emand t he st at e l aw cl ai m of mal i ci ous

pr osecut i on.

-21-


22/22

V. Concl usi on

We r everse and remand f or ent r y of summar y j udgment f or

t he def endant s on t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms of excessi ve f or ce,

bat t er y, and vi ol at i on of t he MCRA. We l ack j ur i sdi ct i on over t he

pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms of mal i ci ous pr osecut i on, and r emand t hese

cl ai ms f or pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s deci si on.

So order ed.

-22-

hunt v. massi, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents