Opinion ID: 738911
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Liability of Officer Wiles and Unidentified Officers

Text: 5 When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability [under § 1983], the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively could have believed that his conduct was lawful. Act Up!/ Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir.1993). We recently noted that no particularized case law is necessary for a deputy to know that excessive force has been used when a deputy sics a canine on a handcuffed arrestee who has fully surrendered and is completely under control. Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir.1994). Accepting Menjivar's deposition testimony as true, as we must, no reasonable police officer could have believed that it was lawful to kick Menjivar or sic a canine on him as he was lying on his stomach with his hands cuffed behind his back. Even when the allegation appears improbable, it must be treated as true, if sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The district court therefore committed error by concluding that Officer Wiles was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.