Opinion ID: 172763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Applying Cortez

Text: Accordingly, our precedent requires a showing in a handcuffing case of an actual, non-de minimis physical, emotional, or dignitary injury to succeed on a claim. Applying Cortez, as explained above, we agree with the district court that a reasonable jury could find the officers used greater force than would have been reasonably necessary to effect a lawful seizure. We also conclude that on the facts alleged, a reasonable jury could conclude Fisher has shown some actual injury that is not de minimis. Taking Fisher's affidavit together with the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable jury could find our actual injury requirement satisfied. The objective facts (viewed in the light most favorable to Fisher) are compelling on this score. (1) At the time the officers encountered Fisher, they knew he had shot himself and lay bleeding on the ground. (2) His shirt was off and the gunshot wounds from his bicep and stomach were obvious. (3) The officers tried to help staunch the wounds with a shirt or towel. (4) The bicep wound had swollen to the size of a grapefruit. (5) When told he was to be handcuffed behind his back, Fisher pleaded with the officers to avoid exacerbating the injuries. (6) Nonetheless, an officer placed a knee in Fisher's back to leverage his arms, and handcuffed him with his arms behind his back. (7) At that point, as Fisher alleges, the officers' actions in forcing my arms behind my back despite my injuries caused me to endure excruciating pain. It felt like my bicep was tearing. I believe that their actions exacerbated my injuries. Aplt.App. 78. This case does not involve only a self-serving affidavit asserting pain alone, without corroborating facts. Instead, although Fisher easily could have done more to document the seriousness of his injuries, Fisher has established a reasonable jury could conclude from the alleged objective facts that the extreme manner of handcuffing caused him a more than de minimis injury. These facts stand in contrast with those cases where a plaintiff complains only of fleeting discomfort from handcuffing, or red marks or swelling that disappear in a few hours or days. Cf. Cortez, 478 F.3d at 1129 (concluding the injury was insufficient to support an excessive force claim when the only evidence in the record was Cortez's affidavit asserting that the handcuffs left red marks that were visible for days). Here, if the facts are as alleged, Fisher experienced an actual injury. [8] In sum, the  objective facts of this case (when viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, not the Defendants) are sufficient for a jury to find actual injury that is not de minimis given the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment and the course of events described by the Plaintiffs. Cortez, 478 F.3d at 1132 n. 28 (emphasis added). Consequently, Fisher has sufficiently alleged a constitutional violation for qualified immunity purposes.