O'Doan v. Sanford, No. 19-15623 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action brought by plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that officers used excessive force against him, lacked probable cause to arrest him, and prepared deliberately fabricated police reports.
The panel concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity where, at the very least, Officer Sanford's use of the reverse reap throw did not violate clearly established law. In this case, officers were called in to a "Code 3" situation involving a "violent" individual; when they arrived, plaintiff was naked and moving quickly on a busy street; and plaintiff resisted the officers' commands to stop, turning to the officers in a threatening manner with his fists clenched.
In regard to the ADA claim, the panel concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the City on plaintiff's claim that officers failed to make a reasonable accommodation when retaining him. The panel explained that plaintiff had not shown that a lesser amount of force would have been reasonable under the circumstances, or how personnel with different training would have acted differently given the exigencies of the situation. Furthermore, the panel could not say that the officers violated clearly established law in determining they had probable cause to arrest plaintiff after witnessing him engage in conduct that indisputably violated Nevada law. Nor did any clearly established law require the officers to conclude that probable cause had dissipated once plaintiff was discharged from the hospital. The panel rejected plaintiff's contention that his arrest was unconstitutional. Finally, the panel concluded that there is no clearly established law that would suggest that the officers committed a due process violation when they omitted from their write-ups initial accounts from an arrestee or others that the arrestee had undergone a seizure at some point before the unlawful conduct.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging that police officers used excessive force against plaintiff, lacked probable cause to arrest him, and prepared deliberately fabricated police reports. Police officers responded to a 911 call reporting that plaintiff had experienced an epileptic seizure, was trying to break windows, and had fled his home naked. In apprehending plaintiff on a sidewalk after he refused to comply with commands to stop, officers struggled physically with plaintiff and used a “reverse reap throw” to bring plaintiff to the ground. Plaintiff was transported to the hospital and, after being treated and discharged, he was released into police custody and charged with indecent exposure and resisting a police officer. Plaintiff was booked into the county jail overnight and released on bail the next day. Charges were later dismissed. The panel held that plaintiff’s § 1983 claims failed because the police officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Addressing first the claim that the use of the reverse reap throw amounted to excessive force, the panel evaluated the facts of this case against the applicable body of Fourth Amendment law, and concluded, at the very least, O’DOAN V. SANFORD 3 that Officer Sanford did not violate clearly established law when he executed the maneuver on plaintiff. The panel noted that officers were called in to a “Code 3” situation, a request for immediate police assistance for a “violent” individual. They arrived to find plaintiff naked and moving quickly on a busy street. Plaintiff repeatedly resisted officers’ commands to stop and then turned to the officers in a threatening manner, with his fists clenched. Plaintiff identified no precedent that would suggest the force used here was excessive, much less that excessiveness was clearly established on these facts. The panel held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim that officers failed to make a reasonable accommodation when detaining him. The panel held that plaintiff had not shown that a lesser amount of force would have been reasonable under the circumstances, or how personnel with different training would have acted differently given the exigencies of the situation. Addressing plaintiff’s unlawful arrest claim, the panel could not say that the officers violated clearly established law in determining they had probable cause to arrest plaintiff after witnessing him engage in conduct that indisputably violated Nevada law. Nor did any clearly established law require the officers to conclude that probable cause had dissipated once plaintiff was discharged from the hospital. Nothing that happened in the emergency room could or did change the fact that plaintiff had, without doubt, engaged in illegal conduct—which the officers had personally observed and experienced firsthand. Assuming plaintiff could assert a parallel ADA wrongful arrest claim against the City, that claim likewise failed. 4 O’DOAN V. SANFORD The panel lastly considered plaintiff § 1983 claim that the officers violated due process because they did not discuss plaintiff’s reported epileptic seizure in their police report and affidavit supporting probable cause. While the panel could agree that more information is usually better than less and that including more specific information about reports of plaintiff’s possible seizure would have been preferable, the question here was whether officers violated clearly established law. The panel concluded that they plainly did not. Dissenting in part, Judge Block stated that the problem with the majority’s opinion was that there were clearly material factual disputes and credibility determinations that were for a jury – not judges – to resolve. Judge Block dissented from those parts of the opinion granting summary judgment for the police officers on plaintiff’s § 1983 false arrest and due process claims, as well as on his ADA claim. Judge Block concurred in those parts of the majority’s opinion upholding the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the excessive force and failure to train claims.
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.