N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT JER R Y VIER R A, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JAM ES ALDO NUTI, JR ., C oc hise C ounty De puty She riff in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty ; AM ANDA NUTI; C AR OL C APAS; NIC K

C APAS; ALISON HADFIELD; SC OTT HADFIELD; NATE TASC H ; ERIN TASC H; SEAN R EEVES GIJANTO; HEATHER

GIJANTO; FOR EST HAUSER ; JOYC E HAUSER ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 14-15650

D.C . No. 4:13-c v-00771-DC B
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 David C . B ury , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 22, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED AUG 18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria t e for public ation 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 tha

t this c a se is suita

b le for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : GR AB E R and TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, *** Se nior Distric t Judge
. De fe nda nts Ja m e s Nuti, Am anda

Nuti, C a rol C a p a s, Nic k C a

pa s , Alison Ha dfie ld, Sc ott Ha d fie ld, Na te Ta sc h, Erin Ta sc h, Se a n Gija nto, He athe r Gija

nto, Fore st Ha use r, a nd Joy c e Ha

u se r a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the ir m otion to dismiss on theground tha t the y are e ntitle d

to qua lifie d

im m unity . W e a ffirm

in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion to dism

iss on the ground of im

m unity . M o rle y v. W a lke r, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th C ir. 1999). W e
a c c e pt the a lle g ations in the c om pla int a s true . Id. " [W ] he re the pe titione r is pro
se , pa rtic ula rly in c ivil rights c a se s, [we ] c onstrue the ple a dings libera lly and . . .
a fford the pe titione r the be ne fit of a ny doubt." He bbe v. Plile r, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th C ir. 2010) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d ). In his se c ond a

m e nde d c om

pla int, Pla intiff a l le ge s tha t De fe nda nt Ja m e s Nuti viola

te d his rights through se

ve ra l a c tions, inc luding: driving a n SUV towa

rd Pla i ntiff in a

thre ate ning m anne r; initia ting a m e ritle s s m anhunt in se arc h of Pla i ntiff by

fa lse ly re porting tha

t Pla i ntiff pointe d a

gun a t him and, la t e r, slightly
c ha nging his story

to fa lse ly re port tha

t Pla intiff ha d pointe d a

gun a t the ground;

*** The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Unite d State s Se nior Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion. 2atta c k ing Pla intiff on Highwa y 82; a rre s ting Pla i ntiff without proba ble c a use ; pointing a

gun a t Pla intiff a fte r he ha d be e n ha ndc u ffe d and wa s ly ing on thefloor; thre ate ning Pla intiff tha

t he ha d to le ave C oc hise C ounty

a fte r he got out of jail;
and, a fte r Pla intiff wa s re le a se d from ja il, submitting fa lsifie d re ports to the prose c utor’ s offic e sta

ting tha t Pla intiff ha d pointe d a

gun a t the ground during the i r initia l a lte rc ation. Assum ing, a s we m

ust, thosea lle gations to be true , we
c onc lude tha

t Nuti is not e

ntitle d to qua lifie d

im m unity a s to Pla i ntiff’ s first, fifth,
and e ighth c l a im s. B e c a use Pla intiff’ s first c la im

a l le ge s phy sic a l ly

intrusivegove rnm e n ta l
c onduc t, we re v ie w it unde r the " Fourth Am e ndm e n t a nd its ‘ re a sona

ble n e ss’ sta nda rd, rathe r tha

n unde r a ‘ substa ntive due proc e ss’ a

pproa c h ." Graham

v. C onnor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989). He re , Nuti a lle ge dly use d signific ant forc e
a ga inst Pla intiff though he a lle ge dly kne w tha t Pla intiff ha d c om

m itte d only

a
m inor infra c tion—

wa lking on a

fog line . Using suc h

forc e , a ssum ing Pla intiff’ s
a lle gations a

re true , wa s unre a sona

ble by any m e a sure , a

n d the im b a la nc e be twe e n the i nfra c tion a

nd the use of forc e wa s so obvious tha t a re a sona ble offic e r in Nuti’ s shoe s would ha

v e known tha

t it wa s e xc e ssive
. Pla intiff’ s fifth c la im a lle ge s tha t Nuti unla

wfully arre ste d Pla intiff e ve n though hekne w tha

t Pla i ntiff ha d ne ve r pointe d a gun a t him or at the ground.
3Taking thefa c ts a lle g e d in the c om pla int to be true , Nuti is not e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity on this c la im . Se e Dubne r v. C ity of San Franc i sc o, 266 F.3d 959, 964 (9th C ir. 2001) (" A c la im for unla wful a rre st is c ogniz a

ble unde r § 1983 a s a viola tion of theFourth Am e ndm e nt, provide d the arre st wa s without proba b le
c a use or othe r justific ation." ); c f. Awa bdy v. C ity of Ade la

nto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th C ir. 2004) (" Am ong the wa y s tha t a pla intiff c an re but a prima fac ie finding of proba

ble c a use is by showing tha

t the c rim ina l prose c ution wa s induc e d by fra ud, c orruption, pe rjury , fa bric ate d e vide nc e , or othe r wrongful c onduc t unde rtake n in ba d fa ith." ). Pla intiff’ s e ighth c la im a lle ge s tha t Nuti unla

wfully de ta ine d Pla i ntiff for 64.5 hours de spite having fa bric a te d a ll the e vide nc e a g a inst Pla intiff. Ta king the fa c t s a l le g e d in the c om

pla int to betrue , Nuti is not e ntitle d to qua lifie d im

m unity on this c la im . Se e Le e v. C ity of Los Ange le s, 250 F.3d 668, 684 (9th C ir. 2001) (holding tha

t, e ve n though the

pla intiff wa s inc arc e ra te d for only one da y be fore his e xtra d ition he aring, the c om pla int wa s suffic ie nt to e sta blish a due proc e ss viola tion a t the ple a dings sta ge be c a use it a lle ge d, a

m ong othe r things, tha

t the de fe nda n ts fa lse ly

arre s te d the pla intiff without proba b l e c a use and with de libe ra te indiffe re nc e to the pla intiff’ s rights).

4Afte r c are ful c onside ra tion of a ll the re m a ining c la im s ra ise d in Pla i ntiff’ s

se c o nd a m e nde d c om

pla int— and to thede g re e tha t a ny of Pla intiff’ s c la i m s a

pply to a ny othe r De fe nda

nts— we hold tha

t those De fe nda

nts a re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity . W e re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s de c i sion re lating to those re m a ining fe de ra l c l a i m s a

nd re m and with instruc tions to dism iss a ll c l a im s a s to a l l De fe nda nts othe r tha

n Nuti a nd to dism

iss a l l c la im s a s to Nuti, with the e xc e ption of Pla intiff’ s first, fifth, a nd e ighth c la im s. 1 AFFIRM E D in par t; RE V E RSE D in par t and RE M ANDE D w ith instr uc tions. The pa

rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l.

1 This instruc tion to dism

iss, of c ourse , doe s not a

pply to Pla intiff’ s sta

te -law sla nde r an d de fam ation c la im , whic h De fe nda nts c onc e de we do not ha ve jurisdic tion to re v ie w. Se e B illington v. Sm i th, 292 F.3d 1177, 1191 (9th C ir. 2002) (holding tha

t the c ourt la c ke d

jurisdic tion ove r state -law tort c la im s on a n inte rloc utory

a ppe a l from

a de nia l of qua lifie d im

m unity ). 5