Opinion ID: 3151680
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Officer Gasca

Text: As with Lieutenant Conner, the district court concluded that there was a fact issue as to the constitutionality of Officer Gasca’s conduct. And as with Officer Coleman and Lieutenant Conner, the court concluded that Weigel clearly established the law. We reverse the district court’s decision in part and dismiss Officer Gasca’s appeal in part. The district court found sufficient evidence to support the following facts with regard to Officer Gasca’s conduct. When Officer Gasca arrived, he saw two people with their knees on Mr. Ashley’s shoulders. He also perceived that Mr. Ashley had vomited. He restrained Mr. Ashley’s legs by crossing Mr. Ashley’s ankles, bent his knees back, put his ankles to his buttocks and kneeled on them; in an alternate description, the district court stated that he “used body weight to keep Mr. Ashley on his stomach and to press his legs into his back.” Aplt. App., Vol. IV at 541. Officer Gasca “remained in this position for several minutes after Mr. Ashley was handcuffed.” Id. Officer Gasca perceived the various signs of excited delirium already mentioned: his strength, he was sweating profusely, and the officers could not control him. For the reasons discussed above, if Officer Gasca applied the complained-of force in an effort to control Mr. Ashley while he was resisting arrest and struggling with officers, the law would not have been clearly established and Officer Gasca is 19 entitled to qualified immunity. Although the district court’s order is somewhat equivocal, it stated that “Officer Gasca joined the struggle,” id.; it weighed the first Graham factor in favor of Officer Gasca, as it did with Officer Coleman and Lieutenant Graham; and it noted Officer Gasca’s perception that officers could not control Mr. Ashley. It also explicitly found that Officer Gasca’s restraint of Mr. Ashley’s legs continued after he was handcuffed. Therefore, we understand the district court to have found that Mr. Ashley had not been handcuffed and continued to act in a manner indicating he was resisting arrest at the time Officer Gasca arrived. In those circumstances, consistent with our discussion of the other officers’ conduct, the law was not clearly established that Officer Gasca’s actions before Mr. Ashley was handcuffed could be considered excessive force. He is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct up to that point. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is reversed to the extent it applies to force Officer Gasca used before Mr. Ashley was handcuffed. The district court, however, explicitly found that the evidence would support a determination that Officer Gasca continued to restrain Mr. Ashley’s legs, while he was in a prone position, for several minutes after he was handcuffed. And the district court found that there was evidence that Officer Gasca did so after perceiving that Mr. Ashley had vomited and that he had exhibited symptoms of excited delirium. These findings are analogous to the force considered potentially excessive in Weigel, 544 F.3d at 1153 (“[T]here is evidence that for three minutes the troopers subjected [the detainee] to force that they knew was unnecessary to restrain him and that a 20 reasonable officer would have known presented a significant danger or asphyxiation and death.”). Officer Gasca’s argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity rests on the fact that Mr. Ashley was struggling when he arrived; he does not address the findings regarding his post-handcuffing conduct. Thus, as to the portion of the proceedings beyond the point that Mr. Ashley was handcuffed, Officer Gasca’s argument implicitly “depends upon a challenge to the facts the district court concluded a reasonable jury could infer based upon the evidence in the summary judgment record.” Fancher, 723 F.3d at 1199. This court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the denial of qualified immunity for Officer Gasca’s post-handcuffing conduct. See id. at 1199-1200. This portion of Officer Gasca’s appeal is dismissed.