N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANTHONY C HANEY,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. DANIEL WADSW OR TH, in his individual c a

pa c i ty and a s R ona

n Polic e C hie f; e t a l., De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-35892 D.C . No. 9:14-c v-00177-DW M
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dona ld W . M olloy , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d June 8, 2017 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c K EOW

N, C A LLAHAN, a

nd IKUTA, C i rc uit Judge s. Anthony C ha ne y (“ Anthony ” ) a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gran ting sum

m ary judgm e nt for de fe nda

nts-a ppe lle e s in his c ivil a c tion brought



# F IL ED
J UN 13 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a nd M onta na sta te la w. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt. Brav o v . C ity of Santa Maria , 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th C ir. 2011). Sum m ary judgm e nt is
a ppropria te “ if the m ova

nt shows tha

t the re is no ge n

uine disputea s to a

ny m ate ria l fa c t and the m o v ant is e ntitle d to judgm e nt a s a m atte r of la

w.” Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 56(a ). “ [T] he e vide nc e of the nonm ova nt is to be be lie ve d, a

nd a ll justifia

ble infe re n c e s a

re to be drawn in his fa

vor.” Tolan v . C

o tton , 134 S. C t. 1861, 1863 (2014) (pe r c uriam ) (quoting A nde rson v . Libe r ty Lobby , Inc ., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). 1 1. “ A § 1983 plaintiff m

ust de m onstra

t e a de priva

t ion of a right se c ure d by the C onstitution or la

ws of the Unite d State s, a n d tha t the de fe n da

nt a c te d unde r
c olor of sta

te la w.” K i rtle y v . Raine y , 326 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th C ir. 2003) (c iting W e s t v
. Atk ins , 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)). The de fe nda nts, C ity of R ona n offic e rs (the “ offic e rs” ), a

re e ligiblefor qua lifie d im m unity if “ the i r c onduc t d[id] not viola te c le arly e sta blishe d sta tutory or c onstitutiona

l rights of whic h a

re a sona ble

1 The fa c ts a

re fam ilia r to the pa rtie s a nd a re re s tate d

he re only a s ne c e ssa ry to re solve the le ga l issue s of the a ppe a l
. 2[offic e r] would ha ve known” at

the tim e . Harlow

v . Fitzge rald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Qua lifie d im

m un ity ana l y sis c e nte rs a

round two que stions: (1) “ [t] ake n in the l ight m ost fa

vora ble to the p arty

a sse rting the injury , do the fa c ts a lle ge d show the o ffic e r’ s c onduc t viola te d a c onstitutiona

l right” ; a nd (2) wa s the right “ c le arly
e sta blishe d” at the tim e of the a lle ge d m isc onduc t ? Sauc ie r v . K atz , 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). The Fourth Am e ndm e nt, through the Fourte e nth Am e n dm e nt, prote c ts individuals from

unre a sona

ble se arc he s a

nd se iz ure s by

sta te offic ia ls. Se e Mapp
v . Ohio , 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961). The Fourth Am e ndm e nt pe rm its a rre sts supporte d by proba

b l e c a use . B e c k v . Ohio , 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964). Unde r M ont. C ode Ann. § 45-7-302(1), a pe rson c om

m its obstruc tion if heor she “ knowingly obstruc ts” a

pe a c e offic e r, whic h re quire s “ that a n individual . . . e n ga g e in c onduc t unde r c irc um sta

nc e s tha t m ake him

or he r aw are that it is highly proba ble tha t suc h
c onduc t will im

pe de the pe rform anc e of a pe a c e offic e r’ s la

wful duty
. ” C

i ty of K alispe ll v . C

ame ron , 46 P.3d 46, 47 (M ont. 2002). W e c onc lude tha t the offic e rs ha d proba ble c a u s e to a rre st Anthony

unde r the M onta

na sta tute . Taking thefa c ts in the light m o st fa vora b le to Anthony , a

n offic e r re sponde d to a re porte d ba

r fight a t 2:00 a .m . a

nd found Anthony on top of Donald, who wa s
3sc re am i ng. Anthony sa id tha t Dona ld wa s his brothe r and ha d PTSD. Two m ore offic e rs a rrive d, a nd one offic e r got on top of Anthony to try to c uff Dona ld while
a se c ond offic e r gra

bbe d Anthony

by the arm an d lifte d him

off Dona ld. Anthony y e lle d at the offic e rs a

nd sa id “ f—

tha t dude in the bla c k shirt,” re fe rring to one of the o ffic e rs. Although Anthony wa s told his c onduc t wa s obstruc t ing the offic e rs, Anthony c ontinue d to m ake thre ats. The offic e rs the n ha ndc uffe d Anthony . At
som e point, Anthony

re c e i ve d a

sc ra tc h on the ne c k. It wa s re a sona ble for the offic e rs to be lie ve tha

t Anthony ’ s c onduc t wa s c re ating a risk of m ore viole nc e and that Anthony wa s obstruc ting a

pe a c e offic e r unde r M ont. C ode Ann § 45-7- 302(1), whe n he thre ate ne d the offic e r. No re a sona ble jury c ould find tha

t the offic e rs did not ha

ve proba ble c a use to a rre st Anthony

for obstruc tion. Se e Mc K e nzie v . Lamb , 738 F.2d 1005, 1008 (9th C ir. 1984); Pe sc he l v . C ity of Missoula , 686 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1119 (D. M ont. 2009). 2. The Fourth Am e ndm e nt prote c t s a ga inst unre a sona ble or e xc e ssive forc e by la w e nforc e m e nt offic e rs. Graham v . C o nnor , 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989). “ The

‘ re a sona ble ne ss’ of a

pa rtic ula r use of forc e m

ust be judge d from

the pe rspe c tive of
a re a sona ble offic e r on the sc e ne , rathe r tha n with the20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id . at 396.

4R e sponding to a re porte d fight in progre ss, the offic e rs found Anthony on top of Dona ld a

nd se pa ra te d the two m e n, c a

using a sc ra tc h on Anthony ’ s ne c k. Anthony wa s not be ate n or injure d, be y ond the sc ra tc h. B e c a use the intrusion on Anthony ’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt inte re s ts wa s sm a ll, m e re ly a sc ra tc h on the ne c k,
and the c ounte rva iling gove rnm e nta l inte re st a t sta ke wa s to prote c t

an offic e r in the p e rform anc e of his duty , the offic e rs’ use of forc e wa s re a sona ble unde r the
c irc um s ta nc e s and did not viola

te Anthony ’ s Fourth Am e n dm e nt rights. S e e Graham , 490 U.S. a

t 396–97; Espinosa v . C

ity & C ounty of San Franc isc o , 598 F.3d 528, 537 (9th C ir. 2010). 3. M unic ipa litie s, like the C ity of R ona n , c an be he ld lia

ble unde r 42 U.S.C
. § 1983. Mone ll v

. De

p’t of Soc . Se r

v s. of C i ty of N .Y. , 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Howe ve r, “ [l] ike individual sta te offic ia ls, m

unic ipa l itie s a

re only lia ble unde r Se c tion 1983 if the

re is, a t m inim um , a n unde rly ing c onstitutiona l tort.” J ohnson
v . C ity of Se attle , 474 F.3d 634, 638 (9th C ir. 2007) (c iting Mone ll, 436 U.S. a t 691). B e c a

use the offic e rs did not viola te Anthony ’ s Fourth Am e n dm e nt rights, the re is no ba sis for his Mone ll c la im s. 4. Sum m ary judgm e nt wa s a lso prope r on Anthony ’ s c la i m s unde r M onta na sta te la w. B e c a use the offic e rs did not viola te Anthony ’ s Fourth Am e ndm e n t rights a ga inst unre a sona

ble se arc h a

nd se i z ure , the y

did not viola

t e those rights
5unde r the M onta n a C onstitution e ithe r. “ Wh e re a provision of the

M onta na C onstitution m

i rrors a provision of the

Unite d State s C onstitution, the M onta na Supre m e C ourt looks to the de c isiona l la

w of the fe de ra l c o urts for guida nc e on de ve loping thea

pplic a b le ana ly sis unde r the ide ntic a l provision of the M onta na C onstitution.” Pe

sc he l , 664 F. Supp. 2d a

t 1161 (c iting Quigg v . Slaughte r , 154 P.3d 1217 (M ont. 2007)). Inde e d, “ M onta na ’ s c o nstitutiona

l provision re ga

rding
se arc he s a nd se iz ure s [Artic le II § 11] m irrors the Fourth Am e ndm e n t to theUnite d Stat e s C onstitution.” S

tate v . Sie gal , 934 P.2d 176, 183 (M ont. 1997), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by

State v . K

une ff , 970 P.2d 556 (M ont. 1998); se e also State v . Mc M a ste r , 191 P.3d 443, 445 (M ont. 2008). Nor did the offic e rs viola te Anthony ’ s right to privac y unde r the M onta

na C onstitution. S

e e State v . Hill , 94 P.3d 752, 756 (M o nt. 2004). He re , Anthony ’ s
arre st a nd brie f de te ntion, whic h we re supporte d by proba b le c a use , did not spe c ia lly im p lic ate his right to priva

c y . M ore ove r, Anthony

doe s not a lle ge tha

t
any of his prope rty wa s ille ga lly se arc he d or se iz e d. Fina lly , be c a

u se the offic e rs did not use m ore forc e tha

n wa s re a sona

bly
ne c e ssa ry , no re a sona

ble jury c o uld find the m

lia ble for a ssa

ult a nd ba tte ry unde r M onta na la w. Luc iano v . Re n , 589 P.2d 1005, 1008 (M ont. 1979) (noting tha t “ a public offic e r a c t i ng unde r a uthority of la w a nd without ma lic e is not lia ble for
6a ssa

ult a nd ba tte ry provide d he use s no m ore forc e tha n is re a sona

bly ne c e ssa ry unde r the c irc um sta

nc e to prope rly

pe rform his offic ia l dutie s” ) (c ita tion omitte d). The Distric t C ourt’ s gra

n t of sum m ary judgm e nt is AFFIRM E D
.

7