N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R USSELL P. B AR TLETT,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. LUIS A. NIEVES, in his pe rsona l c a pa c ity and B R YC E L. W EIGHT, in his pe rsona l c a pa c i ty , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-35631 D.C . No. 4:15-c v-00004-SLG
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska Sharon L. Gle a son, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 6, 2017 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : WARDLAW , C LIFTON, a n d OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt R usse ll P. B artle tt a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of
sum m ary judgm e nt to Ala s ka

sta te troope r De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s Luis A. Nie ve s and B ry c e L. W e ight on his § 1983 c la im s of fa lse arre st, e xc e ssive forc e , 

# FIL ED OCT 20 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.m a lic ious prose c ution, a n d re ta lia tory arre st. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt de novo. Garc ia v . C ty . of Me rc e d , 639 F.3d 1206, 1208 (9th C ir. 2011). W e a ffirm in pa rt a nd re ve rse in pa

rt. 1. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to the de fe nda n ts on pla intiff’ s fa lse arre st c la im on the ground of qua lifie d im m unity . A two-pa rt te st a pplie s to qua lifie d im

m unity c la im s. C onstruing the

fa c ts in thelight
m ost fa vora ble to the pa

rty a lle g ing injury , the c ourt m ust e va luate : 1) whe the r the offic e r viola

te d a c onstitutiona

l right; a nd 2) whe the r that right wa s c le arly
e sta blishe d at the tim e of the offic e r’ s a c tions. Se e Lal v . C alifornia , 746 F.3d 112, 116 (9th C i r. 2014) (c i ting Pe arson v . C allahan , 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009)). Adopting B artle tt’ s ve rsion of thefa c ts, we a gre e with the distric t c ourt tha t de fe nda n ts ha d at le a st a

rgua ble proba ble c a u se to a rre st B a rtle tt for ha

ra ssm e nt, disorde rly c onduc t, re sisting a

rre st, or a ssa

ult unde r Ala ska

la w. Whe n Se rge ant Nie ve s initia

te d B artle tt’ s a

rre st, he kne w tha

t B artle tt ha d be e n drinking, a nd he obse rve d B artle tt spe a

k ing in a loud voic e and sta

nding c lose to Troope r W e ight. He a lso sa

w Troope r W e ight push B artle tt ba c k . Although B artle tt m ay have his
own e xpla

na tions for his a c tions, the se e xpla na t ions we re not known to Se rge ant Nie ve s; the te st is whe the r “ the inform a tion the offic e r ha d at the tim e of m a king the a rre st” gave rise to proba

ble c a use . J ohn v . C ity of El Monte , 515 F.3d 936,
2940 (9th C i r. 2008). W e a gre e with the distric t c ourt tha t it did; a re a sona ble offic e r in Se rge ant Nie v e s’ s position c ould ha ve c onc l ude d tha

t B artle tt stood c lose to Troope r W e ight a

nd spoke loudly in orde r to “ c ha lle nge ” him , provoking Troope r W e ight to push him ba c k. Se e Ala s ka

Sta t. § 11.61.120(a

)(1). The re fore , we a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s grant of sum m ary judgm e nt to the troope rs on B artle tt’ s fa lse arre st c la im
. 2. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to the troope rs on B a rtle tt’ s e xc e s sive forc e c la im on the ground of qua lifie d im m unity . In pa rtic u la r, B a rtle tt ha s fa ile d

to point to a

c a se tha t c l e arly e sta

blishe s tha

t the troope rs’ lim ite d

use of forc e to e ffe c t his a rre st wa s unc onstitutiona

l. B artle tt’ s re fe re n c e s to Young v . C

ounty of Los Ange le

s , 655 F.3d 1156 (9th C ir. 2011), a nd Blank e nhorn v
. C

ity of Orange , 485 F.3d 463 (9th C ir. 2007), a re una va i ling. In the p re se n t c a se , the troope rs re a c te d quic kly to a fluid situa

tion a n d we re fa c e d with the undispute dly

c ha lle nging c irc um sta

nc e s of Arc tic M a

n . The se c irc um s ta nc e s we re not pre se nt in Young and Blank e nhorn . B e c a

use the se c ond prong of the qua lifie d im

m unity te st re quire s “ a c a se whe re an offic e r a c ting unde r sim ila r c irc um s ta

nc e s . . . wa s he ld to ha

ve viola te d the Fourth Am e n dm e nt,” and
we are not a

ware of a ny suc h c a se , we a gre e with the distric t c ourt tha t the offic e rs are e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity on B a rtle tt’ s e xc e ssive forc e c la im
. Se e W hite v . 3Pauly , 137 S. C t. 548, 552 (2017) (instruc ting tha t c le arly e s ta blishe d la w m ust be

“ pa rtic ula riz e d” to the fa c ts of the c a se ). 3. W e a lso a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt on B artle tt’ s m a lic ious prose c ution c la im . To pre va il on his m a lic ious prose c u tion
c la im , B artle tt m

ust show tha

t the troope rs prose c ute d

him : 1) with m a lic e ; 2) without proba

ble c a use ; a nd 3) for the purpose of de ny ing him a spe c ific
c onstitutiona

l right. Fre e m an v . C

ity of Santa Ana , 68 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th C ir. 1995). B e c a

use we c onc lude tha

t the offic e rs ha d proba

ble c a use to a rre st B artle tt,
we a ffirm the grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt to the troope rs on this c la im
. 4. W e re ve rse the distric t c o urt’ s dism issa l of B a rtle tt’ s re ta lia

tory arre st
c la im . The distric t

c o urt dism isse d this c la im on the ground tha

t the troope rs ha d proba b le c a use to a rre st B a rtle tt. Howe ve r, we hav e pre viously he l d tha t a pla intiff
c an pre va il on a

re ta lia tory arre st c l a im

e ve n if the offic e rs ha d proba ble c a use to
arre st. Se e Ford v . C

ity of Yak ima , 706 F.3d 1188, 1195–96 (9th C ir. 2013) “ [A] n individua l ha s a right to be fre e from re ta lia t ory polic e a c tion, e ve n

if proba ble
c a use e xiste d for tha

t a c tion.” ). The Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision in Re i c hle v . How ards , 566 U.S. 658 (2012), doe s not fore c lose this re sult. In Re ic h le , the C ourt note d tha t it ha d not pre viously
re c o gniz e d a

First Am e ndm e nt right to be fre e from a re ta l iatory

arre st supporte d
4by

proba ble c a use , but did not c onc lude tha t a pla intiff m

ust show la c k of proba

ble
c a use to m a ke a

re ta lia tory arre st c la im
. Id. a t 664–65. Inde e d , the C ourt
e m pha siz e d tha

t the rule tha

t it a nnounc e d in Hartman v . Moore , 547 U.S. 250 (2006), whic h he ld tha

t a pla intiff c a

nnot m a ke a

re ta lia tory prose c ution c la im

if the c ha rge s we re supporte d by proba ble c a use , doe s not ne c e ssa

rily e xte nd to
re ta lia tory arre s ts. Re ic hle , 566 U.S. a t 666–70. W e have sinc e c l arifie d tha t in the Ninth C irc uit, a pla intiff c an m a ke a re ta lia tory arre s t c l a im e ve n if the arre sting offic e rs ha d proba ble c a use . Wh e n the troope rs a rre ste d B artle tt a

t Arc tic M an in 2014, it wa s c le arly e s ta blishe d tha

t “ an individua l ha s a right to be fre e from re ta lia t ory polic e a c tion, e ve n

if proba ble
c a use e xiste d for tha

t a c tion.” F

ord , 706 F.3d a

t 1195–96. There fore , the distric t
c ourt e rre d in c onc luding tha t B artle tt’ s re ta lia

tory arre st c la im

fa ils sim ply be c a use the troope rs ha d proba b le c a use to a rre st him
. B artle tt ha s pote ntia lly e sta blishe d a c la im of re ta lia tory arre st in viola

tion of the First Am e ndm e nt be c a use 1) he ha s “ de m onstra

te [d] tha t the offic e rs’ c onduc t would c hill a

pe rson of ordina

ry firm ne ss from future First Am e ndm e n t a c tivity ”
and 2) the e vide nc e tha

t he ha s a dva

nc e d would e n a

ble him “ ultim a te l y to prove that the offic e rs’ de sire to c hill his spe e c h wa s a but-for c a use of the ir a l le ge dly unla wful c onduc t.” Id. a t 1193.
5R e ga

rding the first prong of thete st, we have he ld tha t an arre st in re ta lia

tion for the e xe rc ise of fre e spe e c h is suffic ie nt to c hill spe e c h. Lac e y v . Maric opa C

ty . , 693 F.3d 896, 917 (9th C ir. 2012). R e ga rding the se c ond prong, we have he ld tha t,
onc e a pla intiff ha s provide d “ suffic i e nt e vide nc e for a jury to find tha

t the offic e rs’ re ta lia

tory m otive wa s a

but-for c a

use of the ir a c t ion,” “ the issue of
c a usation ultima te ly

should be de te rm i ne d by a trie r of fa c t.” Ford , 706 F.3d a t 1194. C onstruing the

fa c ts in thelight m ost fa

v ora ble to B artle tt, he ha s a dva nc e d suffic i e nt e vide nc e to m e e t this sta nda rd. M o st im

porta ntly , B artle tt a lle ge d tha

t Se rge a nt Nie v e s sa id “ be t y o u

wish y ou would ha

ve ta lke d to m e now” a fte r his
arre st. This sta

te m e nt, if true , c ould e na

ble a re a sona ble jury to find tha

t Se rge ant Nie ve s a rre ste d B artle tt in re ta lia

tion for his re fusa l to a

n swe r Se rge ant Nie ve s’ s que stions e arlie r in the e ve ning. W e the re fore c onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt for the troope rs on B artle tt’ s re t a lia t ory arre st
c la im
. Ea c h pa

rty to be ar its own c osts. AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , A ND RE M ANDE D.

6