N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ANAGED PR O TEC TIVE SER VIC ES, INC ., a s Lim ite d C onse rvator for C hristophe r M ic ha e l Sim

pson, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C ITY OF M ESA, a m

unic i pa l c orporation and politic a l subdivision of the State of Ariz ona ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-17587 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01354-DLR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Dougla s L. R ay e s , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

11, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , PAEZ, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. M ana ge d Prote c tive Se rvic e s , a lim ite d c onse rvator of C hristophe r Sim pson,
a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt on Sim

pson’ s e xc e ssive 

# FIL ED
JUN 06 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.forc e and de libe rate indiffe re n c e c la im s. W e have jurisdic t ion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm

in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and. 1. The distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nt ing sum m ary judgm e nt to the de fe nda

nts on Sim pson’ s e xc e ssive forc e c la im on the ba sis of qua l ifie d im m unity . Se ve ra l im porta nt fa c ts a re dispute d, inc luding how long the offic e rs le ft Sim pson on the pave m e nt a

nd how m any

offic e rs he ld him

down. Thosedispute s e xte nd to Sim pson’ s a c tions a

nd a s to whe the r any forc e or forc e to the e xte nt of c a using
se c o nd-de gre e burns wa s re a s ona ble unde r the c irc um sta

n c e s. Se e Graham v

. C onnor , 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). The s e fa c t ua l dispute s m

u st be re solve d by

a jury be fore a c o nc lusion c a

n be drawn a s to the re a sona ble ne ss of the forc e unde r Graham
. Se e Espinosa v . C ity & C ounty of San Franc isc o , 598 F.3d 528, 532 (9th C ir. 2010). M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt e rre d in e xam ining sole ly “ hot pa ve m e nt” c a se s to de te rm ine whe t

he r the la wwa s c le arly

e s ta blishe d. Tha

t c ourts ha

ve re s olve d prior “ hot pa

ve m e nt” c a se s diffe re ntly is not dispositive ; la

w c an be “ c l e arly
e sta blishe d” e ve n

if “ t he re wa s no c a se on a l l fours prohibiting tha t pa rtic ula r
m anife s tation of unc onstitutiona l c onduc t .” De orle

v . Ruthe rford

, 272 F.3d 1272, 1286 (9th C ir. 2001). Am ong othe r re le va nt princ iple s, it wa s c le arly e sta blishe d that the Fourth Am e ndm e nt prohibits the c ontinue d use of forc e a ga i nst a n a rre ste e 2who is re stra ine d a nd no longer re sisting, se e , e .g. , LaLondev . C

ounty of Riv e rside , 204 F.3d 947, 960–61 (9th C i r. 2000), a n d tha t ignoring a

n a rre ste e ’ s c om

pla ints of pa in viola te s the Fourth Am e ndm e nt, se e , e .g. , Palme r v . Sande rson , 9 F.3d 1433, 1436 (9th C ir. 1993). 2. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt on Sim pson’ s de libe rat e indiffe re nc e c la im . An offic e r is “ de l ibe rat e ly indiffe re nt” if he “ k nows of a nd disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to [de ta ine e ] he a lth a nd sa fe ty .” C olw e ll v . Banniste r , 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th C ir. 2014) (c ita tion omitte d ). He re , Sim pson did not provide

suffic ie nt e vide nc e tha

t the offic e rs ha d a c tua l knowle dge of his burns be fore the y

arrive d at the ja il a

nd tra nsporte d him to the hospita l, or that the y we re aw are of his m e nta l he a lth c ondition. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts. AFFIRM E D IN PART ; RE V E RSE D IN PART ; and RE M ANDE D.

3Manage d Prote c tiv e Se rv ic e s, Inc . v . C

ity of Me sa, e t al. , No. 14-17587 B EA, C i rc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt, disse nting in pa

rt: I re spe c tfully

disse nt from

the m a jority ’ s de c i sion to re ve rse the distric t
c ourt’ s gra

nt of qua lifie d im

m unity a s to thee xc e ssive forc e c la im . The distric t
c ourt did not err whe n it c a nva s se d othe r hot surfa c e c a se s to de te rm ine whe the r the o ffic e rs’ c onduc t he re am ounte d to a c le a rly e sta blishe d viola

tion of Sim

pson’ s
c onstitutiona

l right to be

fre e from unre a sona

ble se izure . In a sse s sing qua lifie d im m unity , “ [i] t

is im p orta nt to e m p ha siz e that this inquiry

‘ m ust be unde rtak e n in light of the

spe c ific c o nte xt of the c a se , not a s a broa d ge n e ra l proposition.’ ” Brosse au v . Hauge n , 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004) (quoting Sauc ie r v . K atz , 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)). B roa d ge ne ra l propositions c an e sta blish a “ c le ar” viola

tion “ in
an obvious c a se . ” Id. Howe ve r, a s the distric t c ourt note d, this is not suc h a c a se . Fe de ra l c ourts ha

ve re a c he d diffe re nt re sults in c a s e s involving deta i ne e s an d hot surfa c e s. 1 This body

of c a se la w “ undoubte dly

show[s] tha

t this a re a is one in 

# FIL ED
JUN 06 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1 C ompare Pric e v . C

ounty of San Die

go , 990 F. Supp. 1230, 1235, 1241 (S.D. C a l. 1998) (no c le arly e sta blishe d c onstitutiona

l viola tion whe re offic e rs le ft a de t a ine e on hot pa

ve m e nt for se ve ra l m inute s), and Rubio v . Lope z , 445 F. App’ x 170, 172-74 (11th C ir. 2011) (sa m e ), w ith How ard v

. K

ansas C ity Polic e De

p’t , 570 F.3d 984, 987-91 (8th C ir. 2009) (c le arly e sta blishe d viola

tion whe re polic e offic e rs forc e d a

de ta ine e to re m a in on hot a spha lt for four to six m inute s), a nd C orde r v . De nv e r , 2000 W L 1234846 (10th C ir. 2000) (unpublishe d) (sam e re sult, whe re offic e rs pinne d

down a de ta ine e on a

hot m anhole c ove r and m ight ha ve sm e lle d burning fle sh).whic h the re sult dep e nds ve ry m uc h on the fa c ts of e a c h c a se .” Id. at 201. “ N one of the m squa re ly gove rns the c a se he re ; the y do sugge st tha

t [the offic e rs’ ] a c t ions fe ll in the ‘ ha z y

borde r be twe e n e xc e ssive and a c c e pta b le forc e . ’ ” Id. (quoting Sauc ie r , 533 U.S. a

t 206)). Ac c ordingly , I would a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s holding tha t hobbling Sim

pson on hot pa

ve m e nt to ove rc om e his phy sic a l re sista nc e to e nte ring the s qua d c ar did not a

m o unt to a

c l e arly e sta

b lishe d viola tion of his c onstitutiona

l rights. I a gre e with m

y c olle a g u e s tha

t the distric t c ourt did not err in gra nting
sum m ary judgm e nt on Sim

pson’ s de l ibe rat e indiffe re n c e c la im
.

2