DONNA KLECKA V. DANIEL COX, No. 16-35261 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 22 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK DONNA KLECKA, No. 16-35261 Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00129-JWS v. MEMORANDUM* DANIEL COX, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2017** Anchorage, Alaska Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff Donna Klecka appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment, based on qualified immunity, to Defendant Daniel Cox. Like the district * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). court, we conclude that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, and therefore summary judgment was appropriate. Accordingly, we affirm. Plaintiff did not satisfy her burden of proving that Defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). First, Plaintiff failed to prove that Defendant acted in an objectively unreasonable manner given the circumstances. Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 756 F.3d 1154, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff was actively resisting arrest, at one point evading another officer’s grip with a loose handcuff attached to her wrist. It was not unreasonable for Defendant to perceive this action as a potential threat and respond accordingly. Further, Defendant was not on notice that he was responding with an unreasonable amount of force. Brooks v. Clark County, 828 F.3d 910, 920 (9th Cir. 2016). Not only have we found similar uses of force to be appropriate in comparable situations, see Tatum v. City of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006), but Plaintiff cites no case law to demonstrate that it was clearly established that such conduct violated her constitutional rights. AFFIRMED. 2

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.