2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-5-2007 

# B orns t a d v . H oney B ro ok P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4534

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Born s t a d v

. H oney B r oo k " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1811. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1811NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 05- 4534 KENNET H T. BORNS TAD, ADM I NI S TRAT OR OF T HE E S TAT E OF KEI TH B. BO RN S T AD, DE CE AS E D, A ppel l ant

v. H O N E Y B R O O K T O W N S H IP ; H O N E Y B R O O K T O W N S H IP PO LI CE D EPA RT M EN T; W EST B RA N D Y W I N E TO W N SH I P; W EST BRAN DY W I NE TO W NSH I P P OLI CE D EPARTM ENT; WI L L I AM BA XT E R; M I CH AE L S AS S O, C/ O HONE Y B RO OK P O L IC E D E P A R T M E N T ; JO H N C O L D R E N , C /O W EST BRAN DY W I NE TO W NSH I P P OLI CE D EPARTM ENT; DEN I SE NO KE, C/ O B RA ND YW I NE PO LOC E DEPAR TM ENT;

DA NI EL SHAPPELL

_____________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. : 03- cv- 3822 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e R . B ar cl aySur r i ck

_____________________ A r gued D ece m ber12, 2006 B e f o re : S M IT H , R O T H , C i r cui tJudges ,T h e H o n o r a b l e J o s e p h E . I r e n a s , S e n i o rD i s t r i c tJ u d g e f o rth e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y, * s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 2 a nd I RE N A S, D is tr i ct

Judge * ( Fi l ed: J anuary5, 2007)

____________________ C ouns el : J os eph F. W us i ni ch, I I I ( A r gued)

E dw ar d C . Sw eene y W us i ni ch, B r ogan & St anzi one 537 W es tU w chl an A venue, Sui t e 200 D ow ni ngt on, PA 19335 C ouns el f orAppel l ant A ndr ew J . B el l w oar( A r gued) M ich a e l G . C ro tty Si a n a , Be l l woa r& M c And r e w, LLP 941 Pot t s t ow n Pi ke, Sui t e 200 C hes t erSpr i ngs , PA 19425 C ouns el f orAppel l ee Tow ns hi

p of H oneybr ook, e t a l. Jo h n P . G o n za les (A rgu ed ) W alt er F . K aw alec , III M ar s hal l , D ennehe y , W arner , C ol eman & G o g g in 200 L ake D r i ve East , Sui t e 300 C herr yH i l l , N J 08012 C ouns el f orAppel l ee W

es tB r andyw i ne T o w n sh ip , et a l.

_____________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________________ S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge .K enneth B or ns t ad al s o s oughtdamages forw r ongful death under42 P A . C ON S . S TAT . 1 § § 8 3 0 1 -8 3 0 2 , b u t d o e s n o t a p p e a l th e d is m is s a l o f th a t c la im . 3 A ppel l antK enneth B or ns t ad fi l ed s ui tagai ns tthe Tow ns hi p of H oneyB r ook, T ow nship of W estB randyw i ne, W i l l i am B axter , M i chael Sasso, John C oldr en, D enis e N oke, and D ani el Shappel l al l egi ng t he us e of e xces s i ve for ce i n t he dea t h of hi s s on, K eith B o rnstad in v iolati o n o f 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 . T h e d ef en d an ts m o v ed fo r sum m ary 1 j udgm ent . T he U . S. D i s t r i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant ed the m o ti o n o n S ep tem b er 9 , 2 0 0 5 o n the g rou n d s tha t th e d ef en d an t po li ce o ff

icers w ere pr ot ect ed byqual i fi ed i m m uni t yand di d notus e exc es s i ve for ce, and thatthe def endant to w n sh ip s h a d n o t ex h ib ited d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e b yf

a ili n g to p ro p e rlytra in th e ir em ploy ees. T he ques t i ons pr es ent ed on appe al ar e: ( 1) w hetherthe tr i al cour tpr oper l yvi ew ed all fa cts i n the ligh t m o st fav o rab le t o the a p p ell an t; (2) w h ethe r th e p o li ce o ff icers are ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t y ; ( 3) w hetherthe pol i ce of fi cer s us ed exc es s i ve for ce; ( 4) w hethert he pol i ce of

fi cer s fai l ed t o r enderadequa t e medi cal as s i s t ance ; ( 5) w hethert he to w n sh ip s w e re d e lib e ra telyin d if f e re n t in f a ili n g to tra in th e p o lice o f f ice rs in a p p ro p ria te p roc ed u res; (6) w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing the p lai n ti ff ’s M ot i on t o Pr ecl ude the t es t i m onyof D r . G . J ohn D i G r egor i o; and ( 7) w hetherthe D i s tr i ct C our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n par t i al l ypr ecl udi ng the t es t i m onyof R . Paul M cC aul eyasKe n n e t h Bo r n s t a d ’ s a p p e a l s f r o m th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n n o tt o p r e c l u d e Dr . G. 2 J ohn D i G r egor i o’ s opi ni on and t o pr ecl ude i n par tthe opi ni on of D r . R . Paul M cC aul ey ar e notaddr es s ed her e bec aus e theyar e moot ed byourconcl us i on thats um m aryj udgm ent w as properl ygrant ed o n the § 19 83 cl ai m s. 4 t o t he r eas onabl enes s of the off i cer s ’ us e of f

or ce. 2

I. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on i n t hi s cas e under28 U . S. C . §§ 1 3 3 1 a n d 1 3 4 3 , a n d 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . T h is C o u rt h a s ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . T h e s ta n d a rd o f

re v ie w f o r a g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p le n a ry. G i l l es v. D a v is , 427 F. 3d 197, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent in f a v o r o f th e a p p e llee s w ill b e a f f irm e d if it ap p e a rs th a t “th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to anym at er i al fac tand thatt heyar e ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” I d. ( quot i ng C am i ol o v. Stat e Farm F i r e & C as . C o. , 3 3 4 F .3 d 3 4 5 , 3 5 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 )). A n iss u e is m at er i al i f ther e i s s uffi ci entevi dence favor i ng the nonmovi ng par t yfora j uryt o r etur n a v e rd ic t f o r t h a t p a rt y . A nders on v. Li ber t y Lobby, I

nc. , 4 7 7 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 9 (1 9 8 6 ). In e v a lu a tin g th e e v id e n c e , “a c o u rt m u st v iew th e f a c ts in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le t o t he nonmovi ng par t yand dr aw al l i nfer ence s i n t hatpart y ’ s favor . ” Farrel lv. P l an t ers Li f es aver s C o. , 206 F. 3d 271, 278 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . T he movi ng par t y“al w ay s bear s the i ni t i al r es pons i bi l i t yof i nform i ng t he di s t r i ctcour tof the bas i s fori t s m ot i on, and i dent i fy i ng t hos e por t i ons of ‘ t he pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and5

admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h t he af fi davi t s , i f any , ’ w hi ch i tbel i eves demonstr at e the abs ence of a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t . ” C e lo tex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 477 U . S. 317, 323 ( 1986) ( quot i ng F ED . R. C IV . P. 56( c) ) . H ow ever , “[i ] n or dert o demonstr at e the exi s t ence of a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t , the nonmovantm us ts uppl ys uffi ci entevi dence ( not m e re a lle g a tio n s ) f

o r a re a s o n a b le ju ry to f in d f o r t h e n o n m o v a n t.” O l

s on v. G en. E l ec. A s tr os pace , 1 0 1 F .3 d 9 4 7 , 9 5 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6 (e ). II. O n J une 6, 2002, K ei t h B or ns t ad ( “B orns t ad”) r eturned t o t he home t hathe s har ed w i t h L or r ai ne B ar l ow and hers even y ear - ol d daught er , J es s i ca. B orns t ad had be en dr i nki ng and w as i nt oxi cat ed. B or ns t ad bi tB ar l ow ’ s daught eron t he bac k and on the chee k. H e then had a di s agr eementw i t h B ar l ow and s t ruck heri n t he fa ce. B ar l ow cal l ed the 9 1 1 em erg en cyn u m b er, bu t B o rnstad thw arted h er f rom sp ea k ing to the d ispa tche r. W h en the d ispa tche r ca ll ed b ac k , there w as n o an sw er. O ff icers S asso an d B ax ter w ere s um m oned t o t he hous e t o i nves t i gat e the 911 hang- up atappr oxi m at el y9: 15pm . W hen t he tw o offi cer s arr i ved on the s cene theyw er e metatthe doorbyB orns t ad and they a sk e d h im a b o u t th e 9 1 1 h a n g -u p . H e a d m itt e d th a t th e re h a d b e e n a p ro b lem , b u t to ld th e m th a t ith a d p a ss e d . B a rlo w c o n tra d icte d th is s tate m e n t. O f f ice r B a x ter w a lk e d w ith B or ns t ad outt o t he por ch w her e he s poke t o hi m w hi l e O ffi cerSas s o s poke w i t h B ar l ow and vi ew ed the bi t e mar k on J es s i ca’ s back. W hen O ffi cerSas s o r eturned t o O ffi cer B a x te r a n d B o rn s ta d , h e in f o rm e d B o rn s ta d th a t h e w a s p la c in g h im u n d e r a rr e s t.6

B or ns t ad r efus ed t o s ubm i tt o the off i cer s ’ r eques t s thathe puthi s hands behi nd hi s back s o t hatt heycoul d handcuf f hi m . H e s w ung hi s arm s atthe off i cer s and hi tone of t hem, eventual l yw r es t l i ng bot h t o t he gr ound. B ar l ow l at ers t at ed that“[t ] he onl ythi ng I obs erved w as K ei t h s t ar t ed s w i ngi ng fi r s t . ” B orns t ad l anded on the gr ound on hi s back. T he off i cer s s pr ay ed hi m w i t h peppers pr ay , butt o no eff ect . H e cont i nued t o t hr as h and fl ai l hi s l i m bs att he off i cer s , and w as notcompl i anteven a ft erhe had be en handc uffe d w i t h hi s hands i n fr ontof hi s body . W hen B ar l ow came outof the hous e t o s ee w hatw as happeni ng, t he off

i cer s i ndi cat ed t o herthats he s houl d cal l 911 forbackup. She l at er s t at ed thatw hi l e the fi r s tt w o offi cer s w er e att empt i ng t o s ubdue B orns t ad theypr es s ed a knee i nt o hi s ches t . B or ns t ad w as s t i l l on hi s back a tthe t i m e. She al s o r epor t ed hea r i ng B o rn sta d “ y e lli n g o u t f

o r m e f o r h e lp .. . [a ]n d [ sa y in g th a t] h e w a s h a v in g tro u b le br eathi ng. ” She coul d notr eca l l how l ong t he s t ruggl e betw een the fi r s ttw o offi cer s and B o rn s ta d la s te d . W hen the bac kup offi cer s arr i ved, theyat t empt ed t o as s i s tO ffi cer s B axt erand Sas s o i n hol di ng B or ns t ad dow n. T he gr oup turned B orns t ad overi n or dert o handcuf f hi m behi nd hi s back. B ar l ow l at ers ai d t hats he di d nots ee a nyof the bac kup offi cer s on top o f B o rnstad , an d that sh e n ev er sa w an yo f th em h ith im . T h e o ff icers ti ed B o rnstad ’s fee tand att empt ed t o m ove hi m t o the pol i ce c rui s er . A tthe poi ntthattheyw er e l oadi ng hi m i nt o t he vehi cl e, one of the off i cer s not i ced thathe w as notbr eathi ng. T heyr emoved him from t he v ehicl e and placed him on the g round . W hen B arl ow cam e ou tof the ho use7

one more t i m e, s he s aw B or ns t ad mot i onl es s on t he gr ound. T he off i cer s comm ence d C PR , t he ambul ance arr i ved, and B orns t ad w as tr ans por t ed t o t he hos pi t al w her e he w as p ro n o u n c e d d e a d . A n aut ops yper form ed byD r . I an H ood i ndi cat ed thatthe ca us e of de ath w as compre s s i on as phy xi a contr i but ed t o byar t er i os cl er ot i c cor onaryvas cul ardi s eas e. Pr i or t o r ece i vi ng t he l ab r epor t s on t he s peci m ens he had s entfort oxi col ogi cal eval uat i on, he al s o opi ned that“a t oxi col ogi cal caus e w oul d bes texpl ai n t he des cr i bed s uddennes s of th e d e a th .” H e late r in d ica ted su rp rise a t th e lac k o f su b sta n c e s o th e r th a n a lco h o l in B or ns t ad’ s s y s t em, s t at i ng t hat“I w as expec t i ng beca us e of hi s behavi or– he s ounded v e rym u c h lik e c a se s th a t w e e n c o u n ter in P h ilad e lp h ia, w h ich tu rn o u t to h a v e g e n e ra lly c o c a in e , b u t so m e tim e s o n e o f th e o th e r stim u lan ts, a s w e ll, o n b o a rd .” In re n d e rin g h is opi ni on, D r . H ood r el i ed upon hi s ow n exami nat i on, w hi ch r evea l ed onl ys uper fi ci al w ounds , and hi s obs ervat i on of B or ns t ad’ s br ai n, w hi ch w as “not abl e fori nt ens e i nj ect i on of m eni ngeal ves s el s and a mar kedl y‘ dus ky ’ purpl e- gr aycol or , ” and the pr es ence of pet echi ae a r ound hi s ey el i ds , s m al l dot - l i ke hemor r hages thatar e s een i n vi ct i m s of s t r angul at i on and compr es s i on as phy xi a. T he r epor tfur t herexpl ai ned that“[c ] ons ecut i ve cor onal s ect i ons di s cl os e a ve r yhypoxi c purpl e- gr aycol orof the dee p and cort i cal gr ay m at t er . . . . ” D r . H ood al s o not ed a 50- 60 per cents t enos i s i n t he cor onaryart er i es caus ed by s catt er ed compl ex ather i os cl er os i s . H ow ever , D r . H ood i dent i fi ed the pr i m arycaus e of death as compre s s i on as phy xi a, ci t i ng the cor onaryvas cul ardi s eas e as onl ya contr i but i ng8

fa ctor. D r. R o d g e r R o th e n b e rg e r, th e C h e ste r C o u n tyC o ro n e r, issu e d a d e a th c e rtific a te forB or ns t ad on Sept ember6, 2002. H e l i s t ed the i m m edi at e ca us e of de ath as co m p ression asp h y x ia. N o o ther u n d erly ing ca u ses w ere li sted o n the c erti fica te. D r. R ot henber gerl at erexpl ai ned thathe di d noti ncl ude the cor onaryvas cul ardi s eas e on B ornst ad’s deat h cert i fi cat e beca use “I don ’tfeel that the co ronaryvasculardis ease contr i but ed orw as a keyfac t orr es ul t i ng i n hi s death [bec aus e] the . . . di s eas e w as pr es ent butw as notfound t o anys i gni fi cantdegr ee. ” T he r epor tfr om t he t oxi col ogyl ab i ndi cat ed thatB orns t ad had a bl ood ethanol l evel of 0. 099 per centw t . / vol . , and a ur i ne ethanol l evel of 0. 17 per centw t . / vol . T he l ab a lso a n a ly z e d B o rn sta d ’s u rin e f o r v a rio u s d ru g s, a n d f

o u n d th a t itw a s n e g a tiv e f o r a ll subst ances, i ncludi ng ben zod i azepines, barbi turat es, cann abinoi ds, am ph et am i nes, opi at es , and coc ai ne. H ow ever , t he l ab’ s negat i ve fi ndi ngs w er e ac compani ed byan ind icati o n that in f

ac t th ere w ere v erysm all u n it s o f so m e o f th e su b stan ce s in B o rnstad ’s u ri n e s a m p le . III . I n r evi ew i ng a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , di s t r i ctcour t s ar e obl i ged t o vi ew a ll fa c ts in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v a n t. Mor t on I nt ’ l , I nc. v. A . E . Stal ey M f g. C o. , 343 F. 3d 669, 680 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . K enneth B orns t ad as s ert s thatthe D i s t r i ct C our tfai l ed t o pr oper l ycr edi ts ever al contr adi ct i ons i n t he evi dence , m os tnot abl ythe9

dis crepancybetw een the po l i ce of fi cers ’ t est i m on yand the st at e forensi c m edical exp ert s’ t es t i m onyand fi ndi ngs . K enneth B or ns t ad al s o cl ai m s thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tdi s count ed t he fa ctt hatt he t es t i m onyof Lorr ai ne B ar l ow and herfr i end, A ngel a Ecker t , contr adi ct ed th e o f f ic e rs ’ a c c o u n ts , a n d th e d is c re p a n c ie s in th e o f f ic e rs ’ t e s tim o n y . I n fac t , i n i t s r eci t at i on of the fa ct s of the ca s e, the D i s t r i ctC our tm ent i oned the pr i m aryci r cumst ant i al evi dence s ubm i t t ed bythe appe l l antonl yonce, as confi r m at i on of B o rn s ta d ’s tim e o f

d e a th . See Borns tad ex r el . es tat e of B or ns tad v. H

oney Brook

Tw p. , 2005 W L 2212359, at*5 ( E . D . Pa. Sept . 9, 2005) . A l t hough the D i s t r i ctC our tdi s cus s ed t he medi cal opi ni ons of D r s . H ood and R othenber geri n conj unct i on w i t h i t s rul i ng on t he a d m iss ib ili tyo f

c e rta in e x p e rt tes tim o n y , the D istric t C o u rt g a v e little in d ica tio n th a t it co n side red their op inion s as f ac tual p red icates f

o r i ts ru li n g o n su m m aryjud g m en t. In fai l i ng t o cons i dert he ci r cumst ant i al m edi cal evi dence pr offe r ed bythe pl ai nt i ff, the D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t c le a rl yf o llo w th e e s ta b lis h e d s ta n d a rd f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s cus s i on of exc es s i ve for ce, i tl ar gel yr el egat ed the p lain tiff ’s c laim o f

c o m p re ss io n a sp h y x ia to a f o o tn o te, n o tin g th a t “[ p ]la in tiff p rim a rily reli es o n three fe d era l cou rto f a p p ea ls de cisi o n s to a rgu e tha t a co u rtca n d ec lare [th at] a C o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n f o r e x c e ss iv e f

o rc e o b v io u slyo c c u rs w h e re c o m p re ss io n a sp h y x ia occur s . ” B or ns tad , 2 0 0 5 W L 2 2 1 2 3 5 9 , at *1 8 (i n terna l qu o tat ion o m itted). T h e C o u rt di s m i s s ed D r . H ood’ s concl us i on t hatB orns t ad di ed fr om compre s s i on as phy xi a by sta tin g th a t “[ t]h e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e o f f ice rs u se d a n yf

o rc e a t all after B orns t ad

### The de c i s i on i n Tof ano was not appeal ed, andhas only been ci te d b y

five other 3 

### d istrict co urts, in clu d in g th e D istrict C o urt h ere. 10 s t opped r es i s t i ng. ” I

d. K enneth B or ns t ad ar gues t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our t“s i m pl yacc ept ed the gi s tof w hat m os tof the pol i ce of

fi cer s cl ai m ed happe ned, ” and “ i gnor ed, orfai l ed t o anal y ze w i t h any rig o r, w h a tev e r e v id e n c e d id n ’t m a tch .” It is tru e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt o p in io n p a id little at t ent i on t o ei t hert he t es t i m onyof B ar l ow orthe medi cal opi ni ons of D r s . H ood and R ot henber ger . H ow ever , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s opi ni on cl os el ytr acks the opi ni on i n Tof ano v. R ei del , 61 F. Supp. 2d 289 ( D . N . J . 1999) , w hi ch s t at ed that“thi s cour tw i l l as s um e that th e p o sitio n in g o f

th e o f f ice rs in h ib ited T o f

a n o ’s b re a th in g a n d , at le a st in p a rt, ca u se d h is d e a th . In o th e r w o rd s, th is c o u rt w ill a ss u m e th a t p lain tiff ’s d e a th re su lted , at le a st in p a rt, fr om pos i t i onal as phy xi at i on. . . . ” I d. at 30 1 . B yw ayo f c o m p arison , the D istri ct C o u rth ere s t at ed that“w e w i l l as s um e thatt he conduc tof the D efe ndantoffi cer s i nhi bi t ed B or ns t ad’ s abi l i t yt o br eathe and c ont r i but ed t o hi s death. ” B or ns tad , 2005 W L 2212359, at*18. Fol l ow i ng Tof

ano ’ s l ead, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed that“[t ] hi s as s um pt i on does

3 notal t ert he conc l us i on t hatt he off i cer s act ed r eas onabl yi n att empt i ng t o s ubdue B or ns t ad. ” I

d. A l t hough a more t hor ough expl anat i on of how the C our tcons t rued al l t he fac t s i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i ff i s des i r abl e, thi s defe r ence t o t he p la in tif f ’s th e o ry o f

th e c a s e f

u lf ills th e m in im u m re q u ir e m e n ts o f R u le 5 6 (c ). IV . W e w i l l aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s opi ni on w i t h r es pectt o t he exc es s i ve for ce11

cl ai m . A l t hough t he def endantoffi cer s had pr obabl e ca us e forB orns t ad’ s arr es t , “the fa ct t hatt he def

endant s had pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es t. . . does notm ean thattheycoul d us e any amount of for ce i n t hatpr oces s . ” Es tat e of Sm i th v. Mar as co , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 4 9 7 , 5 1 5 (3d C ir . 2003) . I n or dert o s how exce s s i ve for ce, the pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e thatthe d e f e n d a n ts ’ s e iz u re o f

th e p la in tif

f w a s u n re a s o n a b le . B r ow erv. C ount y of I nyo , 48 9 U. S. 593, 599 ( 1989) . A s es t abl i s hed i n G r aham v. C onnor , 4 9 0 U . S . 3 8 6 (19 8 9 ), r eas onabl enes s i s eval uat ed undera t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s anal y s i s , w hi ch as ks w hether“the off

i cer s ’ act i ons ar e ‘ obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e’ i n l i ghtof the fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s confr ont i ng t hem, w i t houtr egar d t o t hei runder l y i ng i nt entor m ot i vat i ons . ’ ” I

d. at39 7. A tl eastt hree fact ors s ho uld be i ncluded i n the r easona bleness c a lcu lu s: “ th e se v e rityo f th e c rim e a t issu e , w h e th e r th e su sp e c t p o se s a n im m e d iate t hr eatt o t he s afe t yof the off i cer s orot her s , and w hetherhe i s act i vel yr es i s t i ng arr es tor at t empt i ng t o evade arr es tbyfl i ght . ” I d. at396. T he Thi r d C i r cui tadded s om e addi t i onal candi dat es forcons i der at i on i n Shar r arv. Fel s i ng , 1 2 8 F .3 d 8 1 0 , 8 2 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ): O t herr el evantfac t or s i ncl ude the pos s i bi l i t ythatthe per s ons s ubj ectt o t he pol i ce a ct i on ar e themsel ves vi ol entordanger ous , the dur at i on of the a c tio n , w h e th e r th e a c tio n tak e s p lac e in th e c o n tex t o f e f f e c tin g a n a rre st, t he pos s i bi l i t yt hatt he s us pectm aybe arm ed, and the numberof per s ons w i t h w hom t he pol i ce of fi cer s m us tcont end atone t i m e. I d. at822. U ndert hi s rubr i c, t he off i cer s ’ act i ons her e, al t hough theyhad fa t al c o n s e q u e n c e s , w e re o b

je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . T he ci r cumst ance of B or ns t ad’ s arr es tand demi s e w as a conf r ont at i on betw eenT h e a u to p syre p o rt n o ted th a t “[ t]h e b o d yis th a t o f a lar g e , m u sc u lar , ro b u st a d u lt 4 m al e . . . [t ] he bodyl ength appr oxi m at es 6 fee t1 i nch and the w ei ghti s es t i m at ed atabout 2 3 0 p o u n d s .” 12 pol i ce of fi cer s and an i m pos i ng, i nt oxi cat ed s us pect . T her e i s no di s put e thatB orns t ad 4 h im self q u icklyturn ed the e n co u n ter i n to a p h y sical alt erc ati o n . A ll three o f th e f ac tors out l i ned i n Gr a h a m w ei gh i n favorof the off i cer s . Fi r s t , B orns t ad w as s us pect ed of d o m e s tic v io le n c e th a t in v o lv e d b itin g a c h ild . T h is o f f e n s e is s e ri o u s . Si ngerv. C our tof C o m m o n P lea s, B u c k

s C o u n ty , 879 F. 2d 1203, 1206 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . Second, bys w i ngi ng att he off i cer s and w r es t l i ng t hem t o t he gr ound, he pos ed an i m m edi at e thr eatt o t he s afe t yof the off

i cer s and hi m s el f. T hi r d, ther e i s no ques t i on thathe r es i s t ed arr es t . Fr om th e tim e B o rn sta d a n sw e re d th e d o o r, all o f h is re sp o n se s a n d a c tio n s w e re in ten d e d to a v o id a rr e s t. T he otherr el evantfac t or s l i s t ed bythe Sh arrar C ou rtal so fav or the ap pell ees. B o rn sta d w a s c e rta in lyv io len t an d lik e lyd a n g e ro u s. T h e len g th o f th e a c tio n a p p e a rs to h a v e b e e n su b sta n tial– th e p o lice w e re su m m o n e d a ro u n d 9 :1 5 p m a n d th e tim e o f d e a th w as pr onounced a t11: 35pm . T he ac t i on t ook pl ace ent i r el yw i t hi n t he cont extof ef fec t i ng an arr es t . A l t hough no w eapon w as i nvol ved and the pol i ce e s s ent i al l yhad t o cont end onl yw i t h B or ns t ad, t he t ot al i t yof the fa ct or s w ei ghs i n thei rfavor . T he pr i nci pal fac t or t hatdoes noti s t he fa ctof i nj ur y . A s the C our ti n Sh arrar poi nt ed out , “the fa ctthatt he phy s i cal for ce a ppl i ed w as of s uch an e xt entas t o l ead t o i nj uryi s i ndeed a r el evantfac t or t o be cons i der ed as par tof the t ot al i t y . ” 128 F. 3d at822. H ow ever , as acc ur at el ynot ed by13

th e S e v e n th C irc u it, “ th e m e re f a c t th a t an in

ju ryo c c u rre d w h ile a n in d iv id u a l w a s in pol i ce c us t odyi s nots uffi ci entt o avoi d s um m aryj udgm ent–a pl ai nt i ff musti dent i fyt he s peci f i c unr eas onabl e conduc tt hatcaus ed hi s orheri nj ur i es . ” A bdul l ahi v. C i t y of Madis on , 423 F. 3d 763, 770- 71 ( 7t h C i r . 2005) ( emphasi s added) . K enneth B orns t ad i dent i fi es t he ca us e of the i nj ur yas bei ng the off i cer s ’ i nappr opr i at e ac t i ons i n kneel i ng o n B o rnstad , b u t of

fe rs on lyB arlow ’s l ater an d en h an ce d test im o n y , an d A n g ela E ck ert’s t es t i m onyas t o B ar l ow ’ s exci t ed ut t er ance , as evi dence thatthi s occurr ed. I n eval uat i ng t he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s , cour t s m us tal s o be mi ndful of the Supr eme C our t ’ s admoni t i on t hat“[t ] he ca l cul us of r eas onabl enes s m us tembody al l ow ance fort he fa ctt hatpol i ce of fi cer s ar e oft en for ced t o m ake s pl i t - s econd j udgm ent s –i n ci r cumst ance s t hatar e t ens e, uncert ai n, and r api dl yevol vi ng–aboutthe amount of for ce thati s nece s s aryi n a part i cul ars i tuat i on. ” G r aham , 490 U . S. at396- 97. T he undi s put ed ci r cumst ance s her e w er e thatthe off i cer s w er e conf

r ont ed w i t h an u n c o o p e ra tiv e , into x ica ted , an d p h y sic a llyim p o sin g in d iv id u a l su sp e c ted o f d o m e stic vi ol ence on a dark, r ai nyeveni ng. T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ycons i der ed the s cene fr om th e p e rs p e c tiv e o f

a n o f f ic e r r e s p o n d in g to th e d is p a tc h to B o rn s ta d ’s h o m e . I n W agnerv. B ay C i t

y, Texas , 227 F. 3d 316 ( 5th C i r . 2000) , the Fi fth C i r cui tw as confr ont ed w i t h a fa ctual l ys i m i l ars i tuat i on. G ut i err ez, the dec edent , had ca us ed a d istu rba n ce at a f

ast fo o d restau ran t and p h y sicall yresist ed arrest w h en tw o o ff icers a tte m p te d to re s tr a in h im . I d. at318- 19. T he off

i cer s r emoved hi m fr om the r es t aur ant14

and pl ace d hi m fac e dow n on t he pave m ent , w her e theyhandcuf fed hi m . D ur i ng that process, t he o ffi cers used p epp er s prayand on e of the off i cers pu this shi n across G ut i err ez’ s back. A l at e- arr i vi ng offi cerr epor t ed thathe s aw tw o offi cer s on t op of G ut i err ez. A ft ert aki ng G ut i err ez t o j ai l , the off i cer s not i ced thathe w as notbr eathi ng and b e g a n C P R . T h e yto o k h im to th e h o s p ita l w h e re h e la te r d ie d . I d. T he tr i al cour tdeni ed s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t f

o r t h e tw o o f

f ic e rs in v o lv e d in th e a lte rc a tio n in th e re s ta u ra n t. T he Fi fth C i r cui tconfi r m ed that“the di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l yconcl uded that W a g n e r m a d e a p lau sib le a rg u m e n t th a t G u tierr e z ’s in ju ryd ire c tlya n d e x c lu siv e ly resu lt ed fro m h is al tercati o n w ith d ef en d an ts H ad ash an d M ir elez . A rea so n ab le j u ry co u ld co n clud e tha t th e u se o f p ep p er sp ray , co m b ined w ith the f ac t th at th e o ff

icers rep ea tedlyp u sh ed h im fa ce -firstto the g rou n d , co u ld h av e re su lt ed in G u ti errez ’s s t oppi ng br eathi ng. ” I

d. at320. H ow ever , the Fi fth C i r cui tr ever s ed the deni al of su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th e g ro u n d s th a t th e o f f ice rs’ c o n d u c t w a s o b

jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le b ec au se “ [t]he o ff

icers’ ac ti o n s w ere all co n sist en t w ith the id ea that theym ere lyw ere t r y i ng t o r es t r ai n a vi ol enti ndi vi dual . ” I d. a t 3 2 4 . T h e s a m e ra tio n a le a p p lie s h e re . A l t hough “off

i cer s –i ndeed, anyr eas onabl e per s on–s houl d [know ] thats queez i ng th e b re a th f

ro m a c o m p lian t, pr o n e , an d h a n d c u f f e d in d iv id u a l d e sp ite h is p lea s f o r a ir i nvol ves a degr ee of

for ce thati s gr eat erthan r eas onabl e, ” s ee D r um m ond v. C i t y of A n a h e im , 343 F. 3d 1052, 1059 ( 9t h C i r . 2003) , and C ham pi on v. O ut l ook N

as hvi l l e, I

nc. , 380 F. 3d 893, 903 ( 6t h C i r . 2004) , i ti s nots o cl ear l yunr eas onabl e t o exerts ever e for ce15

on an i ndi vi dual w ho cont i nues t o vi ol ent l yr es i s tarr es t . B ar l ow ’ s depos i t i on t es t i m ony i ndi cat es t hatB or ns t ad cont i nued t o s t ruggl e w i t h pol i ce e ven af t erhe had be en dow n on t he gr ound and handc uffe d. M or eover , s he t es t i fi ed thats he “s aw them geton t he bac k of h im w ith th e k n e e w a yb e c a u se h e h a d a lre a d yf o u g h t w ith th e m . A n d I g u e ss th a t w o u ld be i r r egul arfora pol i ce of fi cert o do. So t heyputhi s arm s behi nd hi s back t o handcuf f h im , a n d h e flu n ga g a in . ” ( emphasi s added) . G i ven the r es i s t ance thatB orns t ad mount ed t hr oughouthi s arr es t , i ti s i m pos s i bl e t o compar e, as the appe l l antw i s hes , the ci r cumst ance s of hi s arr es tw i t h t hos e i n D r um m ond o r C ham pi on , i n w hi ch the pl ai nt i ffs beca m e compl i antaft ert heyhad bee n handcuf fed a nd s hackl ed. T he off i cer s w er e not r equi r ed t o t r eatt he s t i l l - r es i s t i ng B orns t ad i n t he s ame m anneras w as r equi r ed of the o ff icers in e ith er D r um m ond o r C ham pi on . Fur t herm or e, nei t hert he dec i s i on t o r ol l B orns t ad overand handc uff hi m behi nd hi s back ort he dec i s i on t o bi nd hi s l egs cons t i tut ed obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e for ce, and K enneth B or ns t ad does notar gue t o the contr ary . T he s t ruggl e had e s cal at ed t o t he poi nt w her e s uch r es t r ai nt s w er e appr opr i at e, and B orns t ad hi m s el f w as the ca us e of the esc alati o n . In Es tat e of

P hi l l i ps v. C i t y of Mi lw aukee , 123 F. 3d 586 ( 7th C i r . 1997) , the S e v e n th C irc u it ad d re ss e d a situ a tio n in w h ich th e d e c e d e n t ac tiv e lyre sis ted a n ya ttem p ts to s u b d u e h im . I

d. at593. T he C our thel d t hati tw as r eas onabl e t o m aneuve ra r es i s t i ng in d iv id u a l in to a p ro n e p o sitio n a n d to re stra in h is le g s, “ g iv e n th e p e ril p o se d b yh is cont i nued ki cki ng. ” Id . I ndeed, t he C our tnot ed thatthi s r es pons e w as appr opr i at e i n l i ghtT he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o concl uded thatthe off i cer s w er e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed 5 i m m uni t y . H ow ever , w e nee d notr eac h t hi s i s s ue bec aus e w e fi nd no cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. C or r es pondi ngl y , t her e i s no need f ori m m uni t yanal y s i s . See Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 53 3 U . S . 19 4, 20 1 (200 1) ( exp l ai ning t hat the ini t i al i nq uiryi n q uali fi ed im m un i t yi s: “Taken i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he part yas s ert i ng the i nj ury , do t he fa ct s al l eged sh o w th e o f

f ice r’s c o n d u c t v io late d a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t? ” ); B ennet tv. Mur phy , 274 F. 3d 133, 136 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( “I f the pl ai nt i ff f ai l s t o m ake outa cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, t he q u a lif ie d im m u n ity in q u ir yis a t a n e n d ....” ). 16 o f th e f ac t th at “the stru g g le esc alated , b u t th e u n co n tr o v erted test im o n yis th at M r. Phi l l i ps ’ act i ons caus ed the es cal at i on. ” Id . at592. I n a s i m i l arfas hi on, the uncontr over t ed t es t i m onyher e i s t hatB orns t ad i ni t i at ed the phy s i cal encount erand p ro m p ted a c o n tin u e d p h y sic a l re sp o n se b yth e o f f ice rs b yf

a ili n g to su b m it t o th e ir a u th o ri ty. See, e. g. , U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mont oya de H er nandez , 473 U . S. 531, 542 ( 1985) ( “A ut hor i t i es m us tbe al l ow ed ‘ t o gr aduat e thei rr es pons e t o t he demands of anypart i cul ar s i tuat i on. ’ ” ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. P l ace, 4 6 2 U . S . 6 9 6 , 7 0 9 n . 1 0 (19 8 3 ))) . C ons equent l y , and i n cons i der at i on of al l of the fa ct or s out l i ned i n G raha m v. C on no r and i t s pr ogeny , w e conc l ude thatt he for ce e xer t ed upon B orns t ad w as obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. A ccor di ngl y , t he off

i cer s di d notvi ol at e B orns t ad’ s Four t h A m endmentr i ghtt o be fr ee fr om t he us e of e xces s i ve for ce. 5 V . T h e a p p e llan t als o d isp u tes th e D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g o n h is c laim f o r f a ilu re to r endernece s s arym edi cal as s i s t ance . I n par t i cul ar , K enneth B orns t ad ar gues that“w hen a s t a t e o f f i c e r ’ s c o n d u c tp l a c e s a p e r s o n i n p e r i l i n d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e t o th e i rs a f

e t y, t hatconductcr eat es a cons t i tut i onal cl ai m . ” P enil l a v. C i t y of H un t i ng t on P ark , 115 F. 3dIt sh o u ld a lso b e n o ted th a t th e D istric t C o u rt sta ted , in a n a ltern a tiv e h o ld in g w ith 6 res pect t o the m edical assi st ance c l ai m , that because t he p rot ect i on s of t he D ue P rocess C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endmentonl yappl yaft erthe i ni t i al s ei zur e i s compl et e and th e in d iv id u a l is in c u sto d y , B o rn sta d d id n o t en jo yth o se p ro tec tio n s a t th e tim e o f h is m ed ical distress. T h e C o u rtw as p rob ab lyinco rrect i n it s ass erti o n that “P lai n ti ff ap p ea rs to c o n c e d e th a t B o rn sta d w a s n o t in th e c u sto d yo f th e D e f e n d a n t o f

f ice rs p rio r to h is death. ” B or ns tad , 2005 W L 2212359, at*19. H ow ever , as thi s hol di ng w as an al t ernat i ve t o t he C our t ’ s rul i ng t hatt he cl ai m s houl d be di s m i s s ed bec aus e “ther e i s no evi dence t hat t he D efe ndantoffi cer s exhi bi t ed del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o a s er i ous m edi cal need of B or ns t ad, ” s ee i d. at*20, t her e i s no need t o corr ectthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s m i s i nt erpr et at i on o f th e p la in tif

f ’s a rg u m e n t. 17 7 0 7 , 7 0 9 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). K e n n e th B o rn sta d d o e s n o t p re se n t an ya d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e in s uppor tof thi s cl ai m , exce ptt o not e B ar l ow ’ s s t at ementthatthe off i cer s w er e “w at chi ng K ei t h di e. ” Thi s pr offe ri s i n s t ark contr as tt o t hatm ade i n P e n illa : T h e o f f ice rs in th is c a se a lleg e d lyto o k a f f irm a tiv e a c tio n s th a t sig n if ica n tly i ncr eas ed the r i s k fac i ng Peni l l a: theycanc el l ed the 911 ca l l t o t he p a ra m e d ics ; th e yd ra g g e d P e n ill a f ro m h is p o rc h , w h e re h e w a s in p u b lic v iew , into a n em p tyh o u se; th eythen lock ed the d o o r an d left him there al one. A nd t heyal l egedl ydi d s o af t ertheyhad exa m i ned hi m and found hi m t o be i n s er i ous m edi cal need. I d. at710. W hi l e ther e i s no r equi r ementthatthe appe l l antpr es entevi dence of the ca l i ber pr es ent ed i n P e n illa , K enneth B or ns t ad has notm ethi s bur den t o s uppl ys uffi ci ent e v id e n c e th a t a ju ry c o u ld f in d in h is f

a v o r a s to th is c la im . See O l s on , 101 F. 3d at951. 6 V I. I n Mon el lv. D epa rtm ent of So ci al Servi ces of

C i t y of N ew Y ork , 436 U . S. 658 ( 1978) , t he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned that“[o] uranal y s i s of the l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryof the C i vil R i gh t s A ctof 1 87 1 co m pels t he co nclusi on that C on gress d id i nt end muni ci pal i t i es18

and otherl ocal governm entuni t s t o be i ncl uded among t hos e per s ons t o w hom § 1983 appl i es . ” I

d. at 69 0 . A cc o rdin g ly , K en n eth B o rnstad arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt i m pr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the t ow ns hi ps on hi s cl ai m thatthe t ow ns hi ps fai l ed t o t r ai n t he off i cer s i n pr event i ng and avoi di ng compre s s i on as phy xi a, t h e r e b y d i s p l a yi n g a d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e t o th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s o f th e i rc i t i z e n r y. A s a p re lim in a rym a tter, “ [ a ] f in d in g o f m u n icip a l li a b ili tyd o e s n o t d e p e n d a u to m a tica lly ornece s s ar i l yon t he l i abi l i t yof anypol i ce of fi cer . ” Fagan v. C i t

y of V i neland , 22 F. 3d 12 83 , 12 92 (3d C i r. 19 94 ). “H ow ever, for there t o b e m un i ci pal l i abil i t y , there st i l l m ust be a vi ol at i on of the pl ai nt i ff’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” B ro w n v . C o m m ., D e p ’t o f H e a lth E m e rg e n c

y Me d . Se rv s. T

ra in in gIn st. , 318 F. 3d 473, 482 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . A ccor di ngl y , as w e have found thatno vi ol at i on of B orns t ad’ s r i ght s occurr ed her e, w e fi nd no bas i s for m uni ci pal l i abi l i t y . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the to w n s h ip s . V II. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the def endant s w i l l be aff i r m ed. A l t hough t he D i s t r i ctC our tdoes nots eem t o have f ol l ow ed pr eci s el ythe r equi r ementt hati teval uat e al l of the evi dence i n favorof the pl ai nt i ff, a de novo r evi ew o f th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted re v e a ls th a t th e o f f ice rs’ a c tio n s w e re o b

jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le in lig h t o f th e situ a tio n th e ye n c o u n ter e d . T h e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t to t he t ow ns hi ps on t he muni ci pal l i abi l i t ycl ai m s w as l i kew i s e pr operbeca us e the pl ai nt i ff19

fai l ed t o come for w ar d w i t h anyt hi ng m or e than bal d as s ert i ons r egar di ng a di r ectcaus al l i n k b e t we e n a t o wn s h i p p o l i c ya n d th e a l l e g e d c o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.