Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1539_09m1.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

6 

RIVAS-VILLEGAS v. CORTESLUNA 

Per Curiam 

diverge in several respects.  In LaLonde, officers were re-
sponding  to  a  mere  noise  complaint,  whereas  here  they
were  responding  to  a  serious  alleged  incident  of  domestic 
violence  possibly  involving  a  chainsaw.    In  addition, 
LaLonde  was  unarmed.  Cortesluna,  in  contrast,  had  a 
knife protruding from his left pocket for which he had just
previously appeared to reach.  Further, in this case, video 
evidence shows, and Cortesluna does not dispute, that Ri-
vas-Villegas placed his knee on Cortesluna for no more than
eight seconds and only on the side of his back near the knife 
that officers were in the process of retrieving.  LaLonde, in 
contrast, testified that the officer deliberately dug his knee 
into  his  back  when  he  had  no  weapon  and  had  made  no
threat when approached by police.  These facts, considered 
together in the context of this particular arrest, materially
distinguish this case from LaLonde. 

“Precedent involving similar facts can help move a case
beyond the otherwise hazy borders between excessive and 
acceptable force and thereby provide an officer notice that
a specific use of force is unlawful.”  Kisela v. Hughes, 584 
U. S.  ___,  ___  (2018)  (per  curiam)  (slip  op.,  at  5)  (internal 
quotation marks omitted).  On the facts of this case, neither 
LaLonde nor any decision of this Court is sufficiently simi-
lar.  For that reason, we grant Rivas-Villegas’ petition for 
certiorari  and  reverse  the  Ninth  Circuit’s  determination 
that Rivas-Villegas is not entitled to qualified immunity. 

It is so ordered.