Jones v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., No. 14-17388 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseAnthony Jones's parents filed suit against the Police Department and all of the officers involved in the restraining, tasing, and resulting death of Jones. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims. At issue on appeal were the claims against Officers Hatten and English. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to give plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to substitute the proper party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 and thus cure the defective complaint. The panel also held that a jury could reasonably conclude that the officers knew or should have known that their use of tasers created a substantial risk of serious injury or death, and thus there were triable issues of fact as to whether the officers' continuous and simultaneous tasing was reasonable under the circumstances, and whether the officers were on notice that the force they used could cause serious injury or death. Furthermore, there was clearly established Fourth Amendment law at the time of the tasing and a jury could reasonably conclude that the officers used excessive force. Therefore, the court reversed as to this issue. The panel affirmed as to the Fourteenth Amendment claim and the false arrest/imprisonment claims, but remanded as to the state law battery and negligence claims.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Las Vegas police officers, and remanded in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law by the parents and estate of Johnathan Jones, who died after being restrained and tased repeatedly and simultaneously for an extended period. The district court determined that plaintiffs failed to assert their Fourth Amendment claims as executor or administrator of Jones’s estate, as required by the Nevada survival statute, and thus plaintiffs lacked standing to bring these claims. The panel held that consistent with the text of Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 and this Circuit’s case law interpreting the rule, the district court abused its discretion by failing to give plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to substitute the proper party and thus cure the defective complaint. The panel held there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the officers were reasonable in the degree of force they deployed. The panel held that evidence presented at summary judgment would support a jury finding that the officers’ repeated and simultaneous use of tasers for over ninety seconds was unreasonable and that a jury could reasonably conclude that the officers knew or should have known that these actions created a substantial risk of serious injury or death. JONES V. LVMPD 3 The panel held that any reasonable officer would have known that continuous, repeated, and simultaneous tasings could only be justified by an immediate or significant risk of serious injury or death to officers or the public. The panel held that such force generally cannot be used on a prone suspect who exhibits no resistance, carries no weapon, is surrounded by sufficient officers to restrain him and is not suspected of a violent crime. The panel concluded that given that there was clearly established Fourth Amendment law and a jury could reasonably conclude that the officers used excessive force, the question of qualified immunity must proceed to trial. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment claim. The panel held that even assuming all the facts plaintiffs alleged, there was no evidence that the officers acted with a purpose of harming Jones that was unconnected to a legitimate law enforcement objective. The panel held there was a triable issue of fact as to the state law battery and negligence claims. The panel held that while there was no evidence that any of the officers acted out of hostility or improper motive, there was a factual dispute as to whether the repeated and simultaneous tasings were so excessive under the circumstances that they amounted to willful or deliberate disregard of Jones’s rights. The panel therefore remanded plaintiffs’ battery and negligence claims. The panel held that the false arrest/imprisonment claim failed because there was no evidence that the decision to arrest Jones lacked justification, let alone that it was made in bad faith. The panel therefore affirmed the dismissal of that claim. 4 JONES V. LVMPD Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge N.R. Smith would affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the Fourth Amendment claims pursuant to Rule 17. Judge N.R. Smith could not conclude that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims because the plaintiffs failed to name the proper party in interest. He agreed that absent this unreasonable mistake in failing to name the proper party, this case should proceed to trial.
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.