Opinion ID: 3000549
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant Officer Vitalo

Text: Gonzalo also alleged an excessive force claim against Officer Vitalo. The district court set forth the facts related to Gonzalo’s claim against Officer Vitalo in short order, noting only that: “As for Gonzalo Duran; Vitalo admits that he tackled Gonzalo and, evidently, that he hit Gonzalo with his fists and with an asp when attempting to subdue and arrest him.” District Court Opinion at 72. Based on these facts, the district court denied Officer Vitalo’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Again, the question of reasonableness of force is a legal issue, Bell, 321 F.3d at 640, and it is reviewable on interlocutory appeal. See supra at 4. As was the case with Officer Sirgedas, Officer Vitalo did not use excessive force when he struck Gonzalo with an asp and with his fists. Gonzalo admitted to fleeing to the backyard to avoid being arrested and to resisting arrest. Gonzalo also admits that he struggled with at least two officers and that he bit one of those officers. Given Gonzalo’s admission to resisting arrest, coupled with the escalating situation, the number of partygoers and the presence of alcohol, we conclude that it was reasonable for Officer Vitalo to strike Gonzalo with an asp and his fists while attempting to subdue and arrest him.8 Accordingly, Officer Vitalo did not violate Gonzalo’s Fourth Amendment’s rights. Therefore we reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment to defendant Vitalo on Gonzalo’s excessive force claim.