Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1539_09m1.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Per Curiam 

which he did.  Another officer stated, “ ‘left pocket, he’s got 
a knife.’ ”  Ibid.  Rivas-Villegas then straddled Cortesluna. 
He placed his right foot on the ground next to Cortesluna’s
right side with his right leg bent at the knee.  He placed his
left knee on the left side of Cortesluna’s back, near where 
Cortesluna had a knife in his pocket. He raised both of Cor-
tesluna’s arms up behind his back.  Rivas-Villegas was in
this position for no more than eight seconds before standing 
up  while  continuing  to  hold  Cortesluna’s  arms.  At  that 
point, another officer, who had just removed the knife from 
Cortesluna’s  pocket  and  tossed  it  away,  came  and  hand-
cuffed Cortesluna’s hands behind his back.  Rivas-Villegas
lifted Cortesluna up and moved him away from the door.

Cortesluna brought suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, claim-
ing,  as  relevant  here,  that  Rivas-Villegas  used  excessive
force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The District 
Court  granted  summary  judgment  to  Rivas-Villegas,  but 
the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Ninth  Circuit  reversed.  979 
F. 3d, at 656. 

The Court of Appeals held that “Rivas-Villegas is not en-
titled to qualified immunity because existing precedent put 
him on notice that his conduct constituted excessive force.” 
Id.,  at  654.    In  reaching  this  conclusion,  the  Court  of  Ap-
peals relied solely on LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 
F. 3d  947  (CA9  2000).    The  court  acknowledged  that  “the 
officers here responded to a more volatile situation than did 
the officers in LaLonde.”  979 F. 3d, at 654.  Nevertheless, 
it reasoned: “Both LaLonde and this case involve suspects
who were lying face-down on the ground and were not re-
sisting either physically or verbally, on whose back the de-
fendant officer leaned with a knee, causing allegedly signif-
icant injury.”  Ibid. 

Judge Collins dissented.  As relevant, he argued that “the
facts  of  LaLonde  are  materially  distinguishable  from  this 
case  and  are  therefore  insufficient  to  have  made  clear  to 
every reasonable officer that the force Rivas-Villegas used