09-0460-c v

Wil liams v. W ood 1 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 4 SUM M AR Y O RD ER 5 6 RULINGS BY SUMM ARY O RDER DO NOT H AVE PRECEDENTIAL EF F ECT. CITATION TO 7 A SU MMAR

Y ORDE R FILED ON OR A FT ERJANU AR Y 1, 2007 , I S PERMITT ED A ND IS 8 G OV E RN E D BY FE D E R A L R U L E OF A PPE L LATE P ROC E D U R E 3 2. 1 A N D T HIS C OU R T ’S 9 LOCAL RULE 32.1.1 . WHEN CITI NG A SUMM ARY O RDER IN A DOCUMENT F ILED WITH 10 THI S COURT, A PARTY M U S T CITE EITHER TH E FEDERAL AP P ENDIX OR AN 11 ELECTRONI C DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATI ON “ S U MMA R Y OR D E R ”) . A P ARTY CITI NG 12 A S U MMA R

Y OR D E R MU S T S E R

V E A C OPY OF IT ON A N Y PA R T Y N OT RE PR E S E N T E D BY 13 COUNSEL. 14 15 At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 16 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 29 th 17 day

of April, two thousand ten. 18 19 Pr e se nt: 2 0 P IE R R E N

. LE V A L, 21 ROBERT A. K ATZ MANN, 22 B ARRI NG TO N D . PA RKER, 23 Circuit Judges

. 24 25

________________________________________________ 26 27 J EFF REY WI L L IAMS, 28 29 Plain tif f- Ap pe lla nt, 30 31 v. No. 09-0460-c v 32 33 J AMES WOOD, Albany Police Offic er, 34 35 Defendant- Appellee

. 36 37

________________________________________________ 38 39 F or

Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt: T H O M A S F. R I NAL DI , L .A .R. 46(e) , ANDR I Y R. P AZ UNI AK , 40 L .A .R. 46(e) (John R omberg , on the brief ), Se ton Ha ll 41 University School of L aw, Cente r for Social J ustice, Ne war

k, 42 New Jersey 43-2- 1 For

Def endant - Appellee : ANDREW H. W OOD , A ssi sta nt C or po ra tio n Co un se l for

Jo h nJ. 2 Reilly , Corporation Counsel, City of Albany , Depa

rtment of 3 L aw, Alba ny , New Y ork 4

________________________________________________ 5 6 Appea l from the United States District Court for the Northe rn District of Ne w York 7 (McAvoy , J. ). 8 9 ON CO NSI DE RA TIO N W HEREOF , i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , and 10 DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

date d Jan

ua ry 23 , 2 00 9, be and

he re by is 11 VA CA TED in part and RE M AN DE D to t he dis tr ic t c ourt

fo r t ri a l. 12 Plaintiff J eff rey Wil liams appea ls from the orde r of the United States District Court for 13 the Northe rn District of Ne w York ( McAvoy , J. ) g rantingthe motion of Defe ndant J ames Wood 14 for summary

judgme nt on Wi lliams’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Wil liams argues that the 15 district court er

red in grantingsummary

judgme nt on his claims of unlawful ar rest and e x cessive 16 forc e by

failingto construe the f

acts in the lig ht most favorable to him. W illiams does not appeal 17 the g ra

nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt o n h is c la im o f r a c ia l pr of ili ng . We a ssu

me the pa rt ie s’ 18 fa

mil iari ty wi th t he un de rl yingfa c ts, pr oc e dura l hi sto ry , a nd iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. 19 “We re view a district c ourt’s g rant of summar y judgme nt de novo . . . .” Fabozzi v. 20 Lexington Ins. Co. , __ F.3d __, 2010 WL1291985, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 6, 2010) (interna l 21 quotation marks omitted). A cour t may g rant summary

judgme nt only

wher e “the re is no g enuine 22 iss ue a s to any

mate ri a l f

a c t.” F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( c )( 2) . Ag e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t e xists 23 wher e “a

rea sonable jury

could re turn a ve rdict for the nonmoving pa

rty .” Redd v . W

right , 597 24 F.3d 532, 536 ( 2d Cir. 2010) (interna l quotation marks omitted). To make this deter mination, a 25 c ourt

mus t “ c on str

ue the fa c ts i n th e light m os t f avo ra ble to t he no n- mov ingpa

rt y and mus t-3- 1 resolve a ll ambiguities and dr aw a ll reasona ble infer ence s ag ainst the movant.” W illiams v. R.H. 2 Donnelley

, Corp. , 368 F.3d 123, 126 ( 2d Cir. 2004). 3 The doc trine of qua lified immunit y holds that “g overnme nt officials pe rfor ming 4 dis c re tio na

ry fu nc tio ns g e ne ra lly

are sh ie lde d f

ro m li a bil ity fo r c ivi l da

ma g e s in so fa

r a s th e ir 5 conduct doe s not violate clea rly established statutory

or constitutional rig hts.” Harlow v. 6 Fi tzge ra ld , 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rig ht violated is “clea rly established” if

“it would be 7 c le ar t o a

re a so na ble of fi c e r [i n th e po sit ion

of the de fe nd ant] that th e c on du c t w a s unla wf ul i n 8 the situation he confr onted.” Sa uc ie r v . Ka tz , 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). “T his inquiry turns on 9 the objective le g al re asonable ness of the a ction, assessed in lig ht of the leg al rules that we re 10 clea

rly established at the time it was taken.” Pearson v. Callahan , 129 S.Ct . 808, 822 (2009) 11 (interna l quotation marks omitted). 12 Wil liams first objects to the district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt on his claim that 13 Woo d s top pe d h im w ith out r e a so na ble su sp ic ion

and arr e ste d h im w ith out pr ob a ble c a us e in 14 violation of the Four th Amendment of the Constitution. See B rown v. Texas , 443 U.S. 47, 51 15 (1 97 9) ; Gilles v. Repic ky , 511 F.3d 239, 245 ( 2d Cir. 2007). The district cour t gr anted summary 16 jud g me nt o n th is c la im b e c a us e it d e te rm ine d th at Woo d h a d p ro ba ble c a us e to a rr e st Wi lli ams, 17 and , a lte rn ativ e ly , th at Woo d w a s immun e fr om s uit un de r t he do c tr ine of

qu a lif ie d immun ity 18 beca

use he “ had ar guable pr obable c ause” for the a rre st. W illiams v. W

ood , No. 9:06-CV-0911, 19 2009 WL211072, at *4 (N.D .N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009). The c ourt explained that Wi lliams “was in a 20 vehicle w ith [ another person], the vehicle stopped in front of a g roup of pe ople sitting in front of 21 a house [at which police had found dr ug s and a shotgun thirteen da y s ear lier], Pl aintiff g ot out of-4- 1 the vehicle and ‘br iefly ’ spoke with [persons in front of the house, and the n] he returne d to the 2 vehicle.” Id. at *4. 3 Th is e xplanatio n, ho we ve r, did no t c on str

ue the fa c ts i n th e light m os t f avo ra ble to 4 Wil liams. W ood stated only that he sawWil liams “at or a round” the house. Id. at *2. He 5 t es t i fi edth ath e d i d n o ts ee W i l l i am s geto u to f t h e v eh i cl e o r s p ea k wi than y o n e. Al th o u gh 6 Wil liams admitted speakingto persons in front of the house, this fac t is not relevant to the 7 qu e sti on

wh e the r Wo od

ha d r e a so na

ble su sp ic ion , b e c a

us e no e vid e nc e su g g e sts that at th e tim e 8 Wood st opped Willi ams he ha d any knowledg e of Williams having spoke n to persons in front of 9 the house. Se e Flor ida v . J .L. , 529 U.S. 266, 271 (2000) (“ The re asonable ness of off icial 10 suspicion must be measure d by what the of

fice rs knew . . . .” ). Construing the fac ts in the light 11 mos t f

avo ra ble to Wi lli ams, the re fo re , Wo od sto pp e d Wil liams m e re ly on the ba sis of

se e inghim 12 g et into a vehicle in the vicinity of a house wher e drug s and a shotgun had bee n found thirteen 13 day s ear lier. 14 Un de r c le arl y e sta bli sh e d la w, the se fa c ts a

re ins uf fi c ie nt t o g ive ri se to r e a so na ble 15 suspicion that would justi fy a tra ffic stop, much le ss probable c ause to support a n arr est. See 16 Illinois v. W

ardlow , 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000) (“ An individual’s prese nce in a n are a of e x pecte d 17 criminal ac tivity , standingalone, is not enough to support a re asonable , particula rized suspicion 18 that the per son is committ ing a crime.” ). In a ca se exhibit ing f ar greater grounds for suspicion 19 than her e – whe re a man was se en to drive up to a known drughouse, ente r the house, le ave a 20 short time later, a nd drive a way – this court stated that a stop wa s not justi fied. United States v. 21 Swi nd

le , 4 07 F .3 d 5 62 , 5 69 (2 d Ci r. 20 05 ). B e c a us e the fa c ts i n th e light m os t f avo ra ble to-5- 1 Wil liams fail, under c lear ly established law, to pr ovide Wood reasona ble suspicion to justi fy 2 stopping Willi ams, much less ar restinghim, we conc lude that g enuine issues of material fa ct 3 rema in and summary judgme nt should not have bee n g rante d on the claim of unc onstitut ional 4 se izur e of

Willi ams. 5 Wil liams also objects to the district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt on his claim that 6 Woo d s ub

je c te d h im t o e xce ssi ve fo rc e . T he dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt o n th is 7 claim bec ause it conc luded that Wood used a leve l of forc e that wa s objectively rea sonable g iven 8 the circ umstances, a nd, alternatively , that Wood was immune from suit because “off icer s of 9 rea sonable c ompetence could disag ree about whethe r De fenda nt’s use of f

orce was e x cessive.” 10 W

illiams , 2009 WL211072, at *5. These conclusions wer e base d on Wil liams’s conver sation 1 1 w i thp e r s o n s i nf

r o n to f th e h o u s e w h e r e p o l i c e h a d f o un d n ar c o t i c s an d

a s h o t gunth i rt e e nd ays 12 ear lier, Wood’s testimony that Wil liams refuse d Wood’s request to make his right hand visible, 13 and a statement by Sz ot, the owner

and drive r of the ve hicle, that he thought Wi lliams was 14 “beingwise” a

nd said “‘F -you’ or somethinglike that.” Id. 15 This ag ain fa iled to construe the f acts in the lig ht most favorable to Wi lliams. W ood 16 te sti fi e d th at he did no t se e Willi ams s pe ak to anyon e in f ro nt o f t he ho us e . Wil liams 17 further

more de nied there was a

ny communication betwe en him and Wood before Wood pull ed 18 him out of the vehicle a nd hit and pushed him. He de nied havingbeen dir ecte d to show his right 19 ha

nd and de nie d r e sis tin garr e st i n a ny wa y . T he fa c ts i n th e light m os t f avo ra ble to Wi lli ams, 20 there fore , require d the cour t to decide whe ther Wood’s use of f orce was justified by

the fa ct that 21 he sawWil liams ge t into a truck “a round” a house whe re dr

ug s and a shotgun had bee n foundNor wa s summary judgme nt justi fied by

the fa ct that Will iams did not specify how 1 many times or wher e Wood hit him and how se vere his injuries were nor by the fa ct that Wil liams describe d the enc ounter a s “a lig ht litt le rough up.” Pl.’s Dep. 35:6, June 17, 2008. An un jus tif ie d u se of fo rc e by the po lic e vio late s th e F ourt h A me ndme nt e ve n if

it d oe s n ot c a

us e serious injury

. Ro bis on v . V ia , 821 F.2d 913, 924 ( 2d Cir. 1987).

-6- 1 thirteen da

y s ear lier. Unde r cle arly

established law, the fac ts seen in that light did not justify the 2 use of f

orce . See Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) (r equiringthat circ umstances 3 such as “ the seve rity of the c rime at issue, whe ther the suspe ct poses an immediate threat to the 4 safe ty

of the off icer s or others, a

nd whether

he is ac tively

resistingarr est or attemptingto evade 5 arr est by

flig ht” justify

an off icer ’s use of f

orce ). The district c ourt there fore err ed in g ranting 6 Woo d’ s mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt o n th is c la im. 1 7 F o r

th e f o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , th e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y VA CA TED in part 8 and RE M AN DE D to t he dis tr ic t c ourt

fo r t ri a l. 9 10 FOR THE COURT: 11 CA TH ERI NE O’ HA GA

N WO L F E, CL ERK 12 13