N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT Jam e s Le a , Plaintiff-Appe lla nt, v. R ic ha rd Ste inbronn, Sgt., De fe nda

nt-Appe lle e . No. 14-35522 D.C . No. 13-c v-00259-M O M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l M osm an, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 10, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : M c KEOW

N a nd W . FLETC HER , C i rc uit Judge s, a nd DOR SEY, ** Distric t Judge . Pla intiff, Ja

m e s Le a , a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gra nting de fe nda

nt Se rge a nt Ric ha rd Ste inbronn’ s m otion for sum m a ry judgm e nt on Le a ’ s § 1983 c la im s for e xc e ssive forc e an d unla wful a rre st a nd se iz ure ste m

m ing from

Le a ’ s 

# FIL ED DEC 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble Je nnife r A. Dorse y , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ne v a da , sitting by de signa tion.2011 a

rre st a t gunpoint. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . §1291, a n d we a ffirm . W e re vie w sum

m a ry -judgm e nt de te rm inations de novo a n d a sk whe the r, whe n vie wing thee v ide n c e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the nonm oving pa

rty , the re are any

ge n uine dispute s of m ate ria l fa c t. 1 1. T he distr ic t c our t pr ope r ly gr a nte d sum m ar y judgm e nt on L e a’s unlaw ful-ar r e st and -se iz ur e c laim s . Ore gon R e vise d Statute § 163.195 make s it a C la ss A m isde m e anor to

“ re c kle s sly

e nga g e [] in c onduc t

[that ] c re ate s a

substa ntia l risk of se rious phy sic a l injury to a nothe r pe rson.” The ha

rm “ ne e d only

be possibleor pote ntia l; it ne e d not a c tua l ly

oc c ur.” 2 In the ir brie fing, both pa rtie s disc usse d at le ngth theissue of whe the r OR S § 163.195 is broad e nough to e nc om pa ss Le a ’ s c onduc t in this c a se . The re is no c a s e dire c tly

on point, nor doe s the sta tute answe r that que stion. Even if the Ore gon sta

tute did not c rim ina liz e Le a ’ s c o nduc t, Ste inbronn is entitle d to sum m ary judgm e nt on Le a ’ s unla

wful-a rre st a nd -se iz ure c la i m s ba s e d on his re a s ona ble be lie f that it did. 3

1 Se e Gonzale

z v . C ity of Anahe im , 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ). 2 State v . C e rv a n te s , 223 P.3d 425, 434 (Or. C t. App. 2009). 3 Se e He ie n v . N

o r th C arolina , 135 S. C t. 530, 540 (2014) (holding tha t a re a s ona ble m ista ke of la w c a n support re a sona

ble suspic ion).2. T he distr ic t c our t pr ope r ly gr a nte d sum m ar y judgm e nt on L e a’s

e xc e ssive -for c e c laim . As the Supre m e C ourt e xpla ine d in Graham v . C onnor , in e xc e ssive -forc e c a se s like this one , c ourts m ust ba la nc e the “ nature an d qua lity of the intrusion”on a pe rson’ s libe rty with the“ c ounte rva i ling gove rnm e nta l inte re sts a t sta ke ” to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r the forc e use d wa s obje c tive ly re a sona ble unde r the c irc um s ta nc e s . 4 R e l e va

nt Graham fa c tors inc lude “ the se ve rity of the c rim e at issue , whe the r the suspe c t pose s a n im m e diate thre at to thesa fe ty of the offic e rs or othe rs, a nd whe the r he is a c tive ly

re sisting a

rre s t or a tte m p ting to e va de arre st by flight.” 5 “ The que stion is not sim ply whe the r the forc e wa s ne c e s sa ry to a c c om plish a le gitim ate polic e obje c tive ; it is whe the r the forc e use d wa s re a s ona ble in light of all the re le va nt c irc um sta

nc e s.” 6 The offic e rs’ a

pproa c h wa s pe rha

ps a n ove rre a c tion, but the

forc e use d wa s not unc onstitutiona

lly e xc e ssive . Though Ste inbronn a nd his te am we re inve stiga ting a m isde m e a

nor offe n se and Le a

did not re sist a

rre s t, the offic e rs ha d re a s on to fe ar for the ir sa fe ty or the sa fe ty

of othe rs. The arre st oc c urre d in a c rowde d public pa

rking lot a

t night, Le a ’ s ha

ndgun wa s ne arby , the re ha d be e n a shooting in the

are a only two we e ks e arlie r, and the e v e nt tha t wa s be ing he ld tha

t

4 Graham v . C

onnor , 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). 5 Id. 6 Hamme r v . Gross , 932 F.2d 842, 846 (9th C ir. 1991) (e n ba n c ).e ve ning wa s known to a ttra c t ga ng m e m be rs. Unde r the se c irc um s ta nc e s, Ste i nbronn’ s use of forc e — whic h re sulte d

in no phy sic a l injury

to Le a — w a s re a s ona ble . And e ve n if the forc e use d we re e xc e ssive , Ste inbronn is entitle d to qua lifie d im

m unity from Le a ’ s e xc e ssive -forc e c la im be c a use “ i t would [not] be c le ar to a re a sona ble offic e r that [Ste inbronn’ s] c onduc t wa s unla w ful in the situa tion he c onfronte d.” 7 B e c a use the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt in Ste i nbronn’ s favor on a ll c la im s, we a ffirm . AFFIRM E D.

7 W ilk ins v . C ity of Oak land, 350 F.3d 949, 954 (9th C ir. 2003) (e m pha sis omitte d) (inte rna l c ita

tions omitte d).