Opinion ID: 170083
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pushing

Text: The second basis for excessive force raised by Ms. Segura is that Officer Jones pushed her against the wall in order to place the handcuffs on her. Ms. Segura stated that her face hit the wall when Officer Jones was placing the handcuffs on her, although there were no visible marks, cuts or abrasions on her face. Also, Ms. Segura stated that Officer Jones exacerbated her back injury when he pushed her against the wall. She took pain medication that evening to allay her discomfort. The injury stemmed from a - 14 - previously herniated disk in her back that was last re-injured while she was gardening. The case relevant to this claim is Saucier v. Katz. 533 U.S. 194 (2001). That case involved the shoving of an elderly man, with a visible leg brace on, into the back of a police van. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 198. The Court held that pushes and shoves must be adjudged under the Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement. Id. at 209. The Court went on to say that the officer “did not know the full extent of the threat respondent posed or how many other persons there might be who, in concert with respondent, posed a threat...” Id. at 208. The officer’s lack of knowledge in Saucier v. Katz is similar to Officer Jones’s circumstances in the instant case. Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis “must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments-in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving-about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97. In Saucier, the Court held that the officer who pushed the suspect was entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate clearly established law. 533 U.S. at 208-209. There the suspect was wearing a large and visible leg brace. In the instant case, Officer Jones had no way of knowing that Ms. Segura had a previous back injury that occasionally could be exacerbated. The shove in Saucier was also of a more forceful nature than that in the instant case because it forced the suspect to the ground, whereas here, Ms. Segura’s face pressed against the wall, leaving no mark or wound. In Saucier, the plaintiff argued that had he not caught himself, he would have sustained an injury. - 15 - Here, Ms. Segura provides no evidence of an injury to her face and stated that she needed pain medication for one evening to allay her back injury due to the push. Since the officer in Saucier was entitled to qualified immunity where there was a visible preexisting condition, Officer Jones is entitled to qualified immunity where there was no cognizable indication of an already existing back injury. Further, the record does not bear out Ms. Segura’s claim that the injuries to her face were substantial enough to be more than de minimis. In sum, we find that the district court erred in denying Officer Jones’s qualified immunity summary judgment motion with respect to Ms. Segura’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim as to both the handcuffing and the push. We REVERSE the district court’s partial denial of Officer Jones’s qualified immunity motion for summary judgment and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Entered for the Court William J. Holloway, Jr.