DANIEL ANDREWS V. CITY OF HENDERSON, No. 20-17053 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff sued the detectives and the City of Henderson (collectively, Defendants) under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The case arose following an incident where Defendants believed they had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for a series of armed robberies and forcibly tackled him as he was leaving a Nevada state courthouse.
The detectives moved for summary judgment arguing that they are protected by qualified immunity, and the City moved for summary judgment arguing Plaintiff could not establish municipal liability. The district court denied the detectives’ motion and denied the City’s motion except as to Plaintiff’s ratification theory.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the use of force was substantial. Although Plaintiff was suspected of a serious crime, the detectives knew that he was not armed and was not posing an immediate threat to anyone as he exited the courthouse. Under these circumstances, a reasonable jury could find that the degree of force used against Plaintiff violated his Fourth Amendment right against excessive force, and the detectives were not entitled to summary judgment on the question of whether they committed a constitutional violation.
The court held that Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) clearly established, that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment by tackling and piling on top of a relatively calm, non-resisting suspect who posed little threat of safety without any prior warning and without attempting a less violent means of effecting an arrest.
Court Description: Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s denial, on summary judgment, of qualified immunity to two police detectives in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging defendants used excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, when, without warning, they tackled plaintiff to the ground, fracturing his hip. Defendants believed they had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for a series of armed robberies and forcibly tackled him as he was leaving a Nevada state courthouse. The panel held that the use of force was substantial. Although plaintiff was suspected of a serious crime, viewing the evidence in his favor, the detectives knew that he was not armed and was not posing an immediate threat to anyone as he exited the courthouse. Under these circumstances, a reasonable jury could find that the degree of force used against plaintiff violated his Fourth Amendment right against excessive force, and the detectives were not entitled to summary * The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. ANDREWS V. CITY OF HENDERSON 3 judgment on the question of whether they committed a constitutional violation. The panel further held that Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) clearly established— and thus put a prudent officer on notice—that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment by tackling and piling on top of a relatively calm, non-resisting suspect who posed little threat of safety without any prior warning and without attempting a less violent means of effecting an arrest. The panel held that it lacked pendent appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s denial of the City of Henderson’s separate motion for summary judgment because the issue of the City’s § 1983 municipal liability was not inextricably intertwined with the detectives’ claim of qualified immunity.
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.