N O T P R E C E D E N T IAL U N I T ED ST A T ES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 07- 4085 and 07- 4116 S CO T T W . Z A HN
v. C IT Y O F T R E N T O N ; C IT Y O F T R E N T O N P O L IC E D E P A R T M E N T ; M I C H A E L K R U C H IN SKY , Pat r olO f f i cer ; J O H N D O E O F F I C E R S ( 1- 5) M I CH A E L K RU CH INS K Y, A p p e l l a nt

S CO T T W . Z A HN
v. C IT Y O F T R E N T O N ; C IT Y O F T R E N T O N P O L IC E D E P A R T M E N T ; M I C H A E L K R U C H IN SKY , Pat r olO f f i cer ; J O H N D O E O F F I C E R S ( 1- 5) CI T Y OF T RE NT ON, A p p e l l a nt

O n App ea lfrom the Uni ted S tat es D i str i ct C o urt f or t he D i s t r i ctof

N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 06- cv - 03064 ) D i s t r i c t J u d g e : H o no r a b l e A nne E . T h o m p s o nH on or ab l e A . Wal l ace T as hi ma , Seni or J u dge of t he U ni t ed * S t a t e s C o ur t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e N i nt h C i r c u i t , s i t t i ng b yd e s i g na t i o n. T he C i t y of T r en

t on has al s o appea l ed f

r om t he s am e or der 1 d e n y i ng s u m m a ry j u d g m e n

t o n th e b a s i s o f q u a l i fi e d i m m uni ty. A muni cipal i t y , how ev er , i s not en t i t l ed t o qu al i f

i ed i mm uni t yf

or cl ai ms as s er t ed under42 U . S. C . § 1983, as ar e Pl ai n t i f f ’ s f eder al c l a i m s . See O w en v. C i t y of I nd epend ence , 445 U . S . 6 2 2, 650 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . W e t h e r e f

o r e w i l ld i s m i s s t h e C i t y o f T r e nt o n’ s a p p e a la nd w i l lc o n f i n e o ur o p i ni o n

o nl y t o t h e a p p e a lo f

O f f i c e r K r uc h i n s k y. 2 Sub mi t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cu i t L A R 34. 1( a)

F eb r u ar y11, 2010 B ef or e: SL O V I T E R , R O T H , and T A SH I M A , C i r cu i t J u dges * ( F i l ed A u gu s t 11, 2010)

OP INI ON TAS H I M A, C i r cui tJud ge . Pol i ce O f

f i cerM i chae lK r u chi n s kyappea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni alof hi s mot i on f or s u mm ar yj u dgme n

t on t he b as i s of

qu al i f i ed i mm uni t y . Scot t Z ahn s u ed O f f i cer 1 K r u chin s kyand ot herdef endan t s , al l egi ng, am ong ot hercl ai ms , t hatO f f i cerK r u chi n s ky had ar r es t ed Z ahn

w i t hou t pr ob ab l e ca u s e and u s ed un r eas on ab l e f

or ce a gai n s t hi m w hen Z ahn and O f f i cerK r u chi n s kyb eca me engaged in an al t er cat i on

af t erO f f i cerK r u chi n s ky a tte m p e d to s e rve Za h n

w i th a te m p o ra ry re s tr a i ni ng o rd e r.

I.3

O n J u l y3, 2004, O f

f i cerK r u chi n s kyw en

t t o Z ahn ’ s home t o s er v e Z ahn w i t h a t em por ar yr et r ai ni ng or der( “ T R O ”) t hatZ ahn ’ s w i f e had ob t ai n ed aga i n s t hi m. T he par t i es ’ r ecol l ect i on s of w hathappened nextar e v er ydi f f er en t . A s i t w as r equ i r ed t o do, t h e D i s t r i c t C o ur t d r e w a l li nf e r e nc e s i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o Z a h n, t h e no n- m o v i ng par t y , and t ook Z ahn ’ s al l egat i on s as t r u e w henev ert heycon f l i ct ed w i t h t hos e of

t he d e fe nd a n ts . See Bartni cki v. V

opper , 2 0 0 F.3 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 4 (3 d . C i r. 1 9 9 9 ), a ff’d , 53 2 U . S. 514 ( 2001) . We do t he s am e, acc ept i ng Z ahn ’ s v er s i on of t he f act s as t r u e f

or t he pur pos es o f ou r rev i ew o f t h e D i str i ct C o urt ’s de ni al o f O ffi ce r Kru ch i n sk y ’s mo ti o n for su mma ry j u d g m e n t. I d. I n h i s d e p o s i ti o n , Za h n

te s ti fi e d th a t a ft e r h e re fuse d to a c c e p t s e rvi c e o f t h e TR O f r om O f f i cerK r u chi n s ky , t he of

f i cerw alked aw ayf

r om Z ahn ’ s door t ow ar d hi s pat r olcar a nd t h e inc id e n

t w a s o v e r a t t h a t p o in

t . Z a h n t h e n c a lle d O f

f ic e r K r u c h in s k yb a c k t o h is p o rc h , tel l i ng th e o ffi c e r th a t h e w a s s c a re d th a t h i s b ip o l a r w i fe mi g h t b e a d a ng e r to her s el f and t hei r chi l dr en , w ho w er e w i t h hi s w i f e att he t i me , b u t ov erw hom Z ahn cl ai me d t o hav e b een

gr an t ed l egalcu s t ody . E v en t u al l y , O f

f i cerK r u chi n s kydecl i n ed t o help Z ahn re g a i n c u sto d yo f h i s c h i l d re n

a nd turn e d to w a l k b a c k to h i s p a tro lc a r a g a i n . At thi s p o i n t, Z ah n sai d h e w o u l d ca l lthe Tren ton P o l i ce to sp ea k to O ffi ce r Kru ch i n sk y ’s sup erv i so r, and O f f i cerK r u chi n s kyw alked b ack t ow ar d Z ahn ’ s f r on t por ch aga i n , i n s t r u ct i ng hi m not t o m a k e t h e c a ll. As th e D i stri c t C o urt re c o un ted , ne x t:4

D efe nd ant Kru ch i n sk yp o si ti o n ed h i mse l f b etw ee n p l ai n ti ff an d the fron

t do o r. P l ai n ti ff turn ed aw ay from O ffi ce r Kru ch i n sk y an d man ag ed to ca l l 9 1 1 , w h ere h e r e p o r t e d t h a t , “ I ’ v e g o t a c o p o u t h e r e , I t h i nk h e ’ s g o ne nu t s . ” D e f e nd a nt Kru c h i n sk yy e l l e d “ N o , ” a nd stru c k P l a i n ti ff’s h a nd w i th e n o u g h fo rc e to d i s l o d g e th e te l e p h o n e . O f f i cerK r un chi n s kyt hen

pun ched Z ahn

a n u mb erof t i me s , ma de an

un s u cce s s f

u lat t em pt t o peppers pr ayZ ahn , and hi t Z ahn i n t he b ack of

t he hea d w i t h a f

l as hl i ght
. A t no p o i nt di d O f f i cerK r un chi n s kyadv i s e Z ahn t hathe w as underar r es t . L ay i ng f ace dow n

on t he l a nd i ng a t th e e nd o f t h e a l te rc a ti o n , Za h n w a s th e n

h a nd c u ff

e d . II. O f f ic e r K r u c h in s k yis e n

t it le d t o q u a lif

ie d im m unit y“ a s lo ng a s [ h is ] a c t io n s c o u ld
r eas on ab l yhav e b een

t hou ght con s i s t en

t w i t h t he r i ght s t heyar e al l eged t o hav e v i ol at ed. ” A nd ers on v. C r ei

ght on , 483 U . S. 635, 638 ( 1987) . A n of f i ceri s en t i t l ed t o qu al i f

i ed i mm uni tyi f, “ [t]a k e n

i n th e l i g h t mo st fa v o ra b l e to th e p a rtya ss e rti ng th e i n j ury , [] th e fa c ts al l eged do [ n ot ] s how t he of f i cer ’ s condu ctv i ol at ed a c on s t i t u t i on alr i ght ” ori f t he r i ght
v i o l a te d w a s n o t c l e a rl ye s ta b l i s h e d a t ti m e o f t h e v i o l a ti o n . S a u c ier v . Ka tz , 533 U . S. 194, 2 0 1 (2 0 0 1 ), over r ul ed i n par tby P ears on v. C al l ahan , 1 2 9 S . C t. 8 0 8 (2 0 0 9 ). We ma y“ exer ci s e [ our ] s ound di s cr et i on i n deci di ng w hi ch of

t he t w o pr ongs of

t he qu al i f i ed i mm uni t yanaly s i s s hou l d b e addr es s ed f i r s t i n l i ght of t he cir cums t ances i n

t he par t i cu l arcas e athand. ” P ears on , 129 S. C t . at818. III . We hav e j ur i s di ct i on

t o r ev i ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s “ deni alof a cl ai m of

qu al i f i ed5

i mm uni t y , t o t he ext en

t t hati t t ur n s on

an i s s u e of l aw , ” as a f

i n aldeci s i on

w i t hi n t he
m e a ni ng o f 2 8 U.S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . M itch e ll v. Fo rs y th , 4 7 2 U. S . 5 1 1 , 5 3 0 (19 9 5 ). H o w ev er,

“ w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on

t o r ev i ew qu es t i on s of

‘ ev i dence s u f

f i ci ency . ’ ” B l ayl ock v
. C i t y of P hi l a. , 504 F . 3d 405, 409 ( 3d. C i r . 2007) . B eca u s e t he “ di s t r i ctcour t det er min e[ d] ‘ t hat t h e r e i s s u f

f i c i e nt r e c o r d e v i d e nc e t o s up p o r t a s e t o f f a c t s und e r w h i c h t h e r e w o u l d b e no i mm uni t y , ’ w e m u s t acc eptt hats etof f act s on i n t er l ocut or yr ev i ew . ” I

d. T h e r e f

o r e , “o ur j ur i s di ct i on

t o r ev i ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derden y i ng s u mm ar yj u dgme n

t depends on w het hert he def

endan t s ’ appea lr ai s es pur e qu es t i on s of l aw or w het heri t chal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det er min at i on of w hi ch f act s w er e s u f

f i ci en t l ys uppor t ed b yev i dence. ” I d. O ff i c e r K ruc h i n s k y ’a a p p e a lp urp o rt s to p re s e n t us w i th p ure q u e s ti o n s o f l a w . H e a r g u e s t h a t h e is e n

t it le d t o q u a lif

ie d im m unit yf

o r a r r e s t ing Z a h n

b e c a u s e a r e a s o n a b le of f i cercou l d b el i ev e t hathe had pr ob ab l e ca u s e t o ar r es t Z ahn f or ob s t r u ct i on

of j u s t i ce underN . J . St at . A n

n . § 2C : 29- 1( a) , f

or r ef u s i ng s er v i ce of

t he T R O . O f

f i cerK r u chi n s ky al so argu es t hat he i s en t i t l ed to qu al i fi ed i mmuni t yfort he amo un t of f orce he u sed aga i n st Z ahn b eca u s e t he f

or ce w as r eas on ab l e in

l i ght of t he cir cums t ances , w hi ch O f f i cer K r u chin s kydes cr ib es as “ an as s au l t upon

a uni f or me d of f i cer ” b yZ ahn , w hom he des cr ib es as cau s i ng t hei r phy s i calal t er cat i on b yv i ol en

t l yr es i s t i ng ar r es t . A l t hou gh O f f i cer K r u chin s kychar act er i zes t hes e i s s u es as pur e qu es t i on s of l aw , w e conclu de t hatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on

t o con s i dert hem b eca u s e t hey“ chal l enge[ ] t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det er min at i on of
w hi ch f act s w er e s u f

f i ci en t l ys uppor t ed b yt he ev i dence. ” B l ayl ock , 504 F . 3d at409.6

O ffi c e r Kruch i n sk y ’s e n ti re a p p e a li s p re mi se d o n a c o mp l e tel yd i ffe re n

t v i e w o f th e fa c ts th a n th e o n e a s s u m e d b yth e D i s tr i c t C o urt a nd w h i c h w e m u s t a l s o a d o p t. Whi l e t he D i s t r i ctC our t as s u me d t hatO f f i cerK ur chi n

ks y ’ s ar r es t of

Z ahn w as p re mi se d o n

th e o ffi c e r’s a ng e r th a t Z a h n w a s c a l l i ng th e Trento n P o l i c e D e p a rtme n

t, O f f i cerK r u chi n s ky ’ s ar gu me n t on appea lw i t h r es pectt o t he f al s e ar r es t cl ai m i s t hathe ar r es t ed Z ahn

f or r ef u s i ng t o acc epts er v i ce of t he T R O . T he f

act s as s u me d b yt he D i s t r i ct C o ur t m a k e c le a r t h a t Z a h n ’ s r e f u s a l t o a c c e p t s e r v ic e o f t h e T R O d id n o t p r e c ip it a t e h is ar r es t . R at her , acc or di ng t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , af t erZ ahn r ef u s ed s er v i ce, “ O f

f i cer K r u chin s kyr es ponded, ‘ hav e i t y our w ay , ’ and t ur n ed t o l eav e. ” I n reg ard to the ex ce ssi v e fo rce cl ai m, t h e D i str i ct C o urt assu med that “ P l ai n ti ff’ s tes ti mo n yd o e s n o t es tabl i sh th a t h e p o se d a th re a t to D e fe nd a n t Kru c h i n sk y ’s s a fe tyo r to ot her s , nor does i t dem on s t r at e t hathe w as r es i s t i ng or ev adi ng ar r es t w hen t he phy s i cal co n fron tat i o n b eg an . Acc o rdi ng to P l ai n ti ff, D efe nd an

t Kru ch i n sk yresp o nd ed to P l ai n ti ff’ s t el ephone ca l l s b ykn ocki ng t he phone out of hi s hand, pun chi ng hi m a t l eas t a coupl e of t i m e s , p u s h i ng h i m a g a i ns t t h e f r o nt r a i l i ng , s t r i k i ng P l a i nt i f f ’ s h e a d w i t h h i s f

l a s h l i g h t , a nd b o unci ng o n

top o f hi m as P l ai n

ti ff l ay fac e d o w n

o n the l an d i ng . ” O ffi ce r Kru ch i n sk y ’s appea li s pr em i s ed on

an en t i r elydi f f er en t s etof f act s . O f f i cerK r u chi n s kyar gu es t hatt he f or ce he u s ed w as ob

j ect i v elyr eas on ab l e a ss u m in g th a t Z a h n f ir s t p h y s ic a llya t t a c k e d h im i n or dert o r es i s t ar r es t . B ycon t r as t , acc or di ng t o t he v er s i on of t he f act s as s u me d b yt he D i s t r i ctC our t , O f

f i cerK r u chi n s kyn ev eran n oun ced a n

i n t en t t o ar r es t Z ahn , b u t j u s t b egan7

p h y s i c a l l ya tta c k i ng h i m o u t o f t h e b lu e .

“ T o en t er t ai n t he of f i cer [ ’ s ] ar gu me n

t s w ou l d r equ i r e u s t o r ev i ew t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s det er min at i on

[ of w hi ch f act s ar e] s ub

j ectt o gen

u i n e di s pu t e, w hi ch w e l ack j uri sd i cti o n

to d o und er Johns on v. Jones . ” B l ayl ock , 504 F . 3d at411 ( di s cu s s i ng Johns on v. Jones , 5 1 5 U.S . 3 0 4 (1 9 9 5 )). B e c a u se O ffi c e r Kruch i n sk y“ ma k e [s] n o a rg u me n ts r egar di ng [ Z ahn ’ s cl ai ms ] t hatdo n ot as k u s t o con t r adi ctt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det er min at i on of w hi ch f act s ar e s ub

j ectt o gen

u i n e di s pu t e, w e w i l ldi s mi s s . . . [ t he] appea lf or l ack of j uri sd i cti o n

und er Johns on v. Jones . ” IV. F or t he ab ov e- s t at ed r eas on s , w e w i l ldi s mi s s t hes e appe al s f r om t he or derof

t he D i s t r i ct C ou rtden

y i ng su mmar yj u dg men

t on P l ai n t i ff’s feder alcl ai ms.