Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton, No. 12-35121 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDonald and Kristi Gravelet-Blondin filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City and Sgt. Shelton for excessive force and unlawful arrest, as well as malicious prosecution for the tasing and arrest of Donald. Kristi also filed suit under state law for the harm she suffered watching her husband's tasing and being threatened with tasing herself. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims. The court concluded, inter alia, that Sgt. Shelton was not entitled to qualified immunity where it was clearly established as of 2008 that the use of a taser in dart mode against a passive bystander such as Donald amounted to unconstitutionally excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court reversed the grant of qualified immunity to Sgt. Shelton and the grant of summary judgment to the City on plaintiffs' excessive force claim; reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment based on the determination that probable cause existed for Donald's arrest; remanded for further proceedings on the unlawful arrest claim; and reversed the grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' common law claims.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law alleging that police officers used excessive force by tasing a passive bystander in dart mode and then arresting him for obstruction of justice. Plaintiff Donald Gravelet-Blondin was tased and arrested after he allegedly failed to comply immediately with an officer order to move away from the scene where his neighbor was being arrested. The panel first determined that, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Donald and his co-plaintiff wife, the discharge of a taser in dart mode was unreasonable given that Donald’s alleged crime was minor and there was no reason to believe, based on his behavior, demeanor, and distance from the officers, that he posed an immediate threat to anyone’s safety. The panel further held that the police officer who tased Donald was not entitled to qualified immunity because it was well known as of 2008 that a taser in dart mode constituted more than trivial force. The panel also reversed the district court’s summary judgment on plaintiffs’ excessive force claim against the City and remanded. The panel further held that a genuine issue of fact remained as to whether there was probable cause to arrest Donald for obstructing a police officer. The panel instructed the district court on remand to consider whether qualified immunity or Monell liability applied to the unlawful arrest claim. Finally, the panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment on plaintiffs’ common law claims for malicious prosecution and outrage. Dissenting, Judge Nguyen stated that the majority went badly astray because it lost sight of the specific context of this case and employed hindsight rather than viewing the scene through the eyes of a reasonable officer.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.