Court Opinion

ID: 9804292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 16:37:59.29048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:40.649116
License: Public Domain

Opinion by Judge PAEZ as to all but Part II.C.l; Opinion by Judge M. SMITH as to Part II.C.l; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge M. SMITH; Concurrence by Judge GOULD; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge BERZON.
OPINION
PAEZ, Circuit Judge:
This case arises out of a decision by Sonora City Police Department officers to handcuff and remove from school grounds an 11-year-old child with attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) who was doing nothing more than sitting quietly and resolutely in the school playground. After a seven-day trial, a jury found that the City of Sonora, Sonora Chief of Police Mace McIntosh, and Officer Harold Prock (collectively “Defendants”) were liable for violating C.B.’s Fourth Amendment rights and for tortious acts. The district court subsequently entered judgment on the verdict, and. Defendants appeal.
We must decide two central issues. First, we must decide whether the district court’s supplemental jury instructions were proper. To resolve this question, we also must determine whether litigants may object to civil jury instructions for the first time on appeal and, if so, what standard of review governs such challenges. Second, we must decide whether the district court erred in denying the individual officers qualified immunity on C.B.’s constitutional claims. Additionally, Defendants raise several evidentiary and post judgment arguments, which we also address. After setting forth the factual and procedural background of the case, we turn to the district court’s supplemental instructions.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.
On September 28, 2009, sixth-grader C.B. was having a “rough” day at school. C.B. had been diagnosed with ADHD and took prescribed medications to manage his symptoms, but that morning, he had forgotten to take his medications. As a result, he experienced periods of unresponsiveness throughout the day; C.B., his parents, and school officials described this as C.B. “shutting down.” The school was aware of C.B.’s ADHD and had an accommodation plan under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, in place for him. The accommodation plan designated Coach Karen Sinclair’s office as a safe space where C.B. could go if he was experiencing a “shut down,” to calm himself and refocus until he was ready to return to class.
Unfortunately, that day, things did not unfold according to plan. When C.B. experienced a “shut down” during recess, Coach Sinclair tried to convince him to go to her office, but C.B. remained unrespon*1011sive and refused to leave the playground. According to Coach Sinclair, during this exchange, C.B. “reared up” on three different occasions from the bench where he was sitting. Coach Sinclair then advised C.B. that if he did not come inside, she would call the police. To this, C.B. allegedly responded by saying, “call them.” C.B., however, testified that he never moved from the bench or said anything to Coach Sinclair during this interaction.
Coach Sinclair testified that she made the decision to call the police because she was concerned about C.B.’s safety. She explained that her concern was based on an incident two years earlier, during which C.B. had stated that “he was tired of feeling the way he felt and he wanted to go out into traffic and kill himself.” Coach Sinclair was particularly concerned because the street outside the schoolyard was a busy thoroughfare. Coach Sinclair admitted, however, that C.B. had never previously attempted to run from her.
At Coach Sinclair’s behest, police were called. The police dispatcher broadcast notice to the officers of “an out of control juvenile.” When Chief McIntosh arrived at the playground, Coach Sinclair whispered to him, “[r]unner[,] [n]o medicine,” and made corresponding hand signals. Chief McIntosh testified that he then sat down next to C.B. and attempted to engage him in conversation, but C.B. was unresponsive. He further testified that Coach Sinclair then “started telling [him] that [C.B.] was out of control, had not taken his medications, was yelling and cussing.” She also advised Chief McIntosh that she no longer wanted C.B. on the school grounds. Chief McIntosh did not ask any followup questions about C.B.’s medications or behavior. C.B. remained completely quiet and unresponsive throughout the time Chief McIntosh was with him.
Coach Sinclair’s testimony contradicted much of Chief McIntosh’s account. She did not remember Chief McIntosh ever making any effort to engage C.B. in conversation. Beyond her initial statement that C.B. was a “runner” who had not taken his medication, she could not recall conveying any other information to the police until she was subsequently asked whether she wanted C.B. removed from the school grounds, to which she said yes. Specifically, she testified that she did not inform the police why she thought C.B. might run, what medications he was on, C.B.’s history, or what had transpired earlier that day. C.B. recalled Coach Sinclair telling Chief McIntosh only that he was a “runner.”
Within a few minutes of Chief McIntosh’s arrival, Officer Prock arrived. He testified that when he arrived, C.B. was sitting quietly, looking at the ground. Coach Sinclair also advised him that C.B. was a “runner,” but Officer Prock did not learn that C.B. had not taken his medication until much later. Officer Prock tried to engage C.B. in conversation, but he remained unresponsive.
About three and a half minutes after Officer Prock arrived, Chief McIntosh signaled that Officer Prock should handcuff C.B. Officer Prock ordered C.B. to stand up, which he did immediately. He then instructed C.B. to put his hands behind his back — which C.B. again did immediately— and handcuffed him. Notwithstanding the fact that C.B. had not disobeyed a single police order, the officers did not explore alternative options for handling the situation before handcuffing him. When Officer Prock handcuffed C.B., C.B. began to cry, believing that he was being taken to jail.
Once C.B. was handcuffed, the officers and Coach Sinclair escorted him off the playground. Officer Prock then pulled his *1012police vehicle around and directed C.B.— still in handcuffs — into the back seat. C.B. complied immediately. During this entire time, no one spoke to C.B. or explained to him why he had been handcuffed, that he was not under arrest, or where the police were taking him. Officer Prock then transported C.B. to his uncle’s business.1 Although Officer Prock’s vehicle was equipped with safety locks, making it impossible for C.B. to escape, C.B. remained handcuffed during the approximately thirty-minute ride to his uncle’s place of business. C.B. testified that the handcuffs caused him pain and left red marks.
Coach Sinclair, who was also the school disciplinarian, testified that in the three years before this incident, she had summoned police to Sonora Elementary School about fifty times. Of those fifty times, police used handcuffs about twenty times, even though about thirteen of those twenty instances did not involve any known or suspected criminal activity. When Officer Prock was handcuffing C.B., Coach Sinclair asked whether the handcuffs were “really necessary,” to which one of the officers replied that it was “procedure.”2 She further testified that she knew this was the police department’s procedure because, in her experience, “any time that the police have to take a child off of campus, whether it be medical, drugs, fight, the child is handcuffed.” Officer Prock also testified that he understood the police department’s policy to permit officers to handcuff any individual they were transporting in the back of a police vehicle.
Following this incident, C.B. experienced a host of psychological and emotional problems, including difficulty sleeping, low self-esteem, anger, irritability, and depression.
B.
C.B. filed this action against the Sonora School District, Coach Sinclair, the City of Sonora, Sonora Chief of Police McIntosh, and Officer Prock, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and a number of state law tort claims. C.B. settled his claims against the Sonora School District and Coach Sinclair. After the district court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of, inter alia, qualified immunity, the case proceeded to trial against the City of Sonora, Chief McIntosh, and Officer Prock on the following claims: unlawful seizure and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and false arrest and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) under state law.
On the sixth day of trial, the jury returned its first verdict, determining that: (1) Defendants were not liable for either § 1983 claim; (2) C.B. had proved that Chief McIntosh’s and Officer Prock’s conduct intentionally caused him emotional distress, and C.B. suffered harm as a result; (3) Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock had established privilege, an affirmative defense to the IIED claim; and (4) C.B. was entitled to damages on the IIED claim. The verdict form also left unanswered the verdict on the false arrest claim. Realizing that the verdict on the IIED claim was internally inconsistent, the district court proposed resubmitting the *1013case to the jury with clarifying instructions. Specifically, the court recommended explaining to the jury that: (1) if it were to find the affirmative defense of privilege, it could not award damages for IIED; (2) Question 11C, rather than Question 11D, corresponded to the IIED damages; and (3) it must answer the question about false arrest. Counsel for both sides agreed.
The court next addressed the jury, explaining that the verdict contained “an inconsistency” and instructing the jury that “[i]f you don’t find the [affirmative defense of] privilege, then you can award damages, but you can’t award damages if you find that the conduct is privileged.” The court also noted a typographical error on page 9 of the verdict form regarding where the jury was to record damages, if any, for IIED, and directed the jury that it needed to respond to the question about false arrest.3 After this instruction, the jury again began deliberating.
Not long thereafter, the jury sent the judge the following written question:
Clarify question 8
if we said yes to all on page 28 of Jury Instruction #20 doesn’t that mean we answer yes to page 9 in verdicts of trial jury?
Jury Instruction 20 set out the elements of the affirmative defense of privilege to the IIED claim, and Question 8 on page 9 on the verdict form asked for the jury’s verdict on whether the officers’ conduct was privileged. At a conference with counsel, the court proposed answering the question in the affirmative. Counsel for Defendants requested that the court also explain again that if the jury were to find privilege, it must move on to the next claim and not award damages for IIED, which the court agreed to do.
When the jury returned to the courtroom, the court described the framework for IIED claims. The court first explained C.B.’s case-in-chief. Then, it discussed the three elements of the affirmative defense of privilege,' as set out in Jury Instruction 20, stating that “if you find yes as to all of those three things, in light of the element's of the intentional infliction of emotional distress, that is called a complete defense and it eliminates liability for damages.” Turning specifically to the jury’s question, the court further explained, “so your inquiry here on question number ... 8, which is the affirmative defense[,] is have the defendants proved the things that are required to be proved on page 23, which is jury instruction 20, the privilege defense.” Having clarified that Question 8 on the verdict form corresponded to Jury Instruction 20, the court again discussed the relationship between a finding of privilege and damages. Finally, the court reminded the jury that it needed to answer the question about false arrest, and indicated that it would provide a new page 11 of the verdict form because of a second typographical error.4
*1014The jury then asked a follow-up question while it was still in the courtroom.
JUROR SEAT NUMBER EIGHT: Okay. So .the fact that we answered affirmative yes to questions 6 and 7. THE COURT: Yes.
JUROR SEAT NUMBER EIGHT: I guess our question is how does that .affect our response to number 8? Is it conflicting?
Questions 6 and 7 asked whether C.B. had met his burden of proof on the elements of IIED. The jury was essentially asking whether it could find that C.B. proved his case-in-chief and still find that Defendants proved their affirmative defense.
The court responded by again explaining the framework for IIED claims. Noting that the jury had effectively found that C.B. met his burden of proving liability, the court explained that “then the question becomes is there an award of damages.” The court went on: “However, under the law, the defendants are entitled to assert what is called an affirmative defense. And an affirmative defense has the legal effect of negating the finding of liability.” While not the most direct response, this statement informed the jury that it could, in fact, answer yes to Questions 6 and 7 and still find privilege. The court again set out the elements of privilege, concluding by telling the jury that “[i]f you find those things, then that negates, if you will, the intentional infliction of the emotional distress.”
Juror Number 8, apparently still confused, asked, “[a]nd that is not a conflict?” To this, the court responded:
It’s not a conflict because it’s an affirmative defense. It’s potentially a conflict depending on what you think of the conduct and the states of mind. But that’s for you to determine. In other words, you have to decide what — what was being thought, what was observed and what was being done under the totality of the circumstances, recognizing what the law is that tells the officers what they can and can’t do in dealing with the plaintiff.
Remember, this is measured objectively by what a reasonable officer in the position of the two defendants would do knowing everything that they knew on the scene with what was happening there. It’s an objective standard.
And this, particularly, examines their conduct in light of the law, in light of what they knew and what they, in good faith, believed and what they did. And so, there is a potential inconsistency, but that depends on what you find the intentions, the states of mind are and the conduct is in light of the law. And you’re the only people who can make those decisions. We cannot tell you how to do it. The attorneys have told you how to do it in their arguments, but it’s for you to make the ultimate decisions.
Again, the court’s explanation, although somewhat long-winded, made clear that a finding of privilege was consistent with a finding of IIED if the facts sustained Defendants’ assertions. Shortly after asking another question about privilege, the jury went home for the evening.
The following morning, at a conference outside the jury’s presence, Defendants’ counsel urged the court to instruct the jury to resume their deliberations with Question 9. The court rejected the requested instruction. Instead, it proposed to instruct the jury “simply to re-deliberate on the questions that are still open.” Once the jury entered the courtroom, the court stated that it “wanted to review briefly where we are so that hopefully you understand and are clear.” The court instructed the jury as follows:
*1015[0]ur suggestion to you is that you consider the findings that you’ve made to the prior questions, you consider the evidence in light of the instruction that you’re being asked to answer when you are on the verdict form.
And that is you have questions 6 and you have questions 7, which you’ve already answered. You’ve answered question 8. And then you have correct instructions on question number 8 as to which questions you should be answering in question 11. You then have a claim that you’ve not decided, and that is the false arrest claim. And that’s question 9A and B. And you have a revised instruction on that.
The court then discussed in greater detail some changes that were made to the instruction regarding false arrest. Following this supplemental instruction, the jury requested to receive the prior day’s instructions on privilege again, indicating “that’s where we’re really fighting right now.”
At a sidebar with counsel, the court advised the parties that it would make “an overarching statement” to “consider! ] the elements affirmatively and defensively on each side.” The court began by summarizing all of the claims, stating:
You have four claims that are brought by the plaintiff. You have two civil rights claims. One for the use of excessive force and one for the use — or the unlawful seizure in the taking into temporary custody and the length of the detention and all the circumstances of the detention that the temporary custody involved.
Those are federal claims.
After this brief mention of the federal claims, the court focused on the state law claims and affirmative defenses. With respect to IIED, the court stated:
And so, in looking at the two state claims, you have the intentional infliction of emotional distress. And then, in jury instruction number 20, you have the defense of privilege and the elements that have to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
So when you are considering that defense, you consider the totality of the circumstances. You consider what went in to the claims that you analyzed, the elements of those claims and all the evidence that bears on that. Then you analyze the elements of the defense, all the evidence that bears on that.
And there should be consistency — and that was your concern — between those findings. The consistency is a function of how you find the facts, which evidence you believe, how much weight you give to the evidence.
Then, the court went on to address false arrest.
The jury deliberated for about four more hours before returning a verdict for C.B. on all claims. The district court denied Defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and remittitur and entered judgment in favor of C.B.
Defendants appeal, arguing: (1) the district court’s supplemental jury instructions were so coercive and confusing as to warrant a new trial; (2) the individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to C.B.’s § 1983 Fourth Amendment claims; (3) several of the district court’s evidentiary rulings were erroneous and warrant reversal; and (4) the district court erred in denying an offset against the overall damages award by the amount of C.B.’s settlement with the Sonora School District. Without specifying the standard of review it applied, a three judge panel of this court unanimously held that the district judge’s supplemental jury instructions and colloquy were sufficiently misleading *1016as to require a new trial. C.B. v. City of Sonora, 730 F.3d 816, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2013); see also id. at 827 (McKeown, J., dissenting) (agreeing with the majority on this point). In a split decision, a majority of the panel also held that the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 824-27 (Maj. Opin.); see also id. at 827-31 (McKeown, J., dissenting).5 Upon a majority vote of eligible judges, the court granted rehearing en banc. C.B. v. City of Sonora, 755 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2014).
II. DISCUSSION
A.
1.
We must first decide the standard of review that governs Defendants’ challenge to the district court’s jury instructions. Historically, we have refused to review jury instructions in a civil case in the absence of a timely objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(c). See Voohries-Larson v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 241 F.3d 707, 713-14 (9th Cir.2001); Larson v. Neimi, 9 F.3d 1397, 1399 (9th Cir.1993). In 2003, however, Rule 51 was amended to provide for plain error review when a party fails to preserve an objection. Fed. R.Civ.P. 51 advisory committee’s note. We have since indicated, in dictum, that this amendment abrogated our prior case law, see Hunter v. Cnty. of Sacramento, 652 F.3d 1225, 1230 n. 5 (9th Cir.2011), and we now so hold. We also take this opportunity to clarify the scope of plain error review under Rule 51. We conclude that the plain error standard of review in the civil context is similar to, but stricter than, the plain error standard of review applied in criminal cases.6
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(d)(2) states that “[a] court may consider a plain error in the instructions that has not been preserved as required by Rule 51(d)(1) if the error affects substantial rights.” The advisory committee’s note explains that subsection (d)(2) was adopted to capture the existing rule in many of our sister circuits that errors in jury instructions not preserved under Rule 51(d) “may be reviewed in exceptional circumstances.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 advisory committee’s note. Although the precise rule varied somewhat from circuit to circuit, most of our sister circuits at the time applied a standard of review that resembled the plain error standard in criminal cases.7 Moreover, “[t]he *1017language adopted to capture these decisions in subdivision (d)(2) is borrowed from [Federal] Rule [of Criminal Procedure] 52.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 advisory committee’s note; see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Finally, the advisory committee’s note suggests that the plain error standard of review in the criminal context should inform our inquiry. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 advisory committee’s note (setting forth the plain error standard of review in criminal cases and citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 469-70, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)).
Yet,- the advisory committee’s note accompanying the amended Rule 51 also cautions that “the context of civil litigation often differs from the context of criminal prosecution” and instructs that “actual application of the plain-error standard takes account of the differences.” Id. After setting out the plain error standard under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52, the advisory committee’s note highlights four factors to consider in applying plain error review in the civil context: (1) the obviousness of the mistake; (2) the importance of the error; (3) the costs of correcting an error; and (4) “[i]n a case that seems close to the fundamental error line, ... the impact a verdict may have on nonparties.” Id. While the first two factors roughly correspond to the plain error standard of review governing criminal cases, the latter two factors are not part of the standard plain error inquiry. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); Johnson, 520 U.S. at 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544; Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770.
Following the 2003 amendments, several circuits have reaffirmed that plain error review in the civil context is similar to the plain error standard governing criminal cases.8 We now join our sister *1018circuits and hold that, when reviewing civil jury instructions for plain error, we must consider, as we do in the criminal context, whether (1) there was an error; (2) the error was obvious; and (3) the error affected substantial rights. See Johnson, 520 U.S. at 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544; Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770. The text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(d)(2), which bears a significant resemblance to the text of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), supports this standard. Compare Fed.R.Civ.P. 51(d)(2) (“A court may consider a plain error in the instructions that has not been preserved as required by Rule 51(d)(1) if the error affects substantial rights.”), with Fed. R.Crim.P. 52(b) (“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”). Moreover, the advisory committee’s note also weighs in favor of this standard. Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 advisory committee’s note; see Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 31, 106 S.Ct. 2379, 91 L.Ed.2d 18 (1986) (recognizing that the advisory committee’s notes on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are “of weight” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Petri, 731 F.3d 833, 839 (9th Cir.) (consulting the advisory committee’s notes accompanying an amendment to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in interpreting the amendment), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 681, 187 L.Ed.2d 554 (2013).
But we also recognize that the stakes are lower in the civil context and, consequently, plain errors should “encompass[] only those errors that reach the pinnacle of fault envisioned by the standard set forth above.” Hemmings, 285 F.3d at 1193 (internal quotation marks omitted).9 Accordingly, when reviewing civil jury instructions for plain error, we find it appropriate to consider the costs of correcting an error, and — in borderline cases — the effect that a verdict may have on nonparties. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 advisory committee’s note; Schiavone, 477 U.S. at 31, 106 S.Ct. 2379; Petri, 731 F.3d at 839.
Finally, we also hold that the decision whether to correct a plain error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(d)(2) is discretionary. This conclusion flows from the permissive text in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(d)(2). Fed. R.Civ.P. 51(d)(2) (“A court may consider a plain error....” (emphasis added)); see also Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 624-25 (9th Cir.2007) (explaining that use of the word “may” in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b) suggests that the district court has discretion in ruling on Rule 36 motions). Moreover, the permissive text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51 parallels Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b) (“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered(emphasis added)). It is well-established that a court of appeals has discretion to correct a forfeited error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), and should do so only if the error “ ‘seriously^ affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceed*1019ings.’ ” Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (quoting Young, 470 U.S. at 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038); see also Johnson, 520 U.S. at 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544; United States v. Alferahin, 433 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, a number of our sister circuits agree that the decision to correct a plain error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(d)(2) is discretionary.10 We therefore conclude that we should exercise our discretion to correct errors under Rule 51(d)(2) only if “review is needed to prevent a miscarriage of justice, meaning that the error seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Diaz-Fonseca, 451 F.3d at 36 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770.
2.
With these principles in mind, we turn to the particulars of this case.11 Defendants argue that the judgment on the verdict should be reversed because the supplemental jury instructions were confusing and coerced the jury to reverse its initial verdict. C.B. contends that the district court’s supplemental instructions were accurate and that nothing the court said misled or influenced the jury to revise its findings as to the other claims. We conclude that the district court’s supplemental jury instructions fall far short of plain error.
Defendants identify four errors in the district court’s supplemental instructions. First, they contend that the court confused the jury by referring to the initial verdict as “inconsistent” without explaining what it meant by that term. The record belies this argument. In the course of telling the jury that the verdict contained “an inconsistency,” the court explained that “[i]f you *1020don’t find ... privilege, then you can award damages, but you can’t award damages if you find that the conduct is privileged.”
Second, Defendants argue that the district court’s response to the jury’s request for clarification was confusing and coercive because it fell “far outside the scope of the jury’s” question. The jury initially asked whether it should answer yes to Question 8 on the verdict form, the question about privilege, if it found that all of the elements of privilege as set out in Jury Instruction 20, were present. This question could have been answered with a simple “yes.” Defendants, however, asked the court to provide a more complete explanation of the relationship between a finding of privilege and an award of damages. At Defendants’ own request then, the court responded to the jury’s question with an overview of the IIED claim. Moreover, in giving this instruction, the court answered the jury’s specific question, stating, “[a]nd so your inquiry here on question number ... 8, which is the affirmative defense[,] is have the defendants proved the things that are required to be proved on page 23, which is jury instruction 20, the privilege defense.” A district court has “wide discretion” in responding to jury questions, Arizona v. Johnson, 351 F.3d 988, 994 (9th Cir.2003), and the explanation here was well within the court’s discretion. Although Defendants complain that the court “went on for an additional 8 pages of transcript,” the only other statements that the court volunteered were a reminder that the jury also had to answer the question about false arrest and that the jury would be given a corrected verdict form. All other instructions were in response to follow-up questions posed by the jury.
Third, Defendants argue that the supplemental instructions given in response to the follow-up questions were confusing because they told the jury to consider the “totality of the circumstances-a phrase that appears in the court’s instruction on probable cause-in determining whether the individual officers’ conduct was privileged. We find no error in this statement. This instruction did nothing more than admonish the jury to consider all of the facts that bear on the question of privilege. The court’s use of the phrase “totality of the circumstances” was tailored to the supplemental instructions and was not a veiled suggestion to revisit the Fourth Amendment claims.
Finally, Defendants argue that the court’s instruction that certain findings should be consistent erroneously implied that the jury must return a verdict uniformly in favor of one party. We conclude that the court’s instructions did no such thing; the court’s comment about “consistency” was clearly tethered to its discussion of the state IIED claim. On the final day of deliberations, the court provided the jury with a brief overview of the “two civil rights claims,”1 but concluded its discussion of those claims by stating:
Those are federal claims.
Then you have two claims, the third and the fourth claims. One is for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the other is for false arrest....
And so as to the two state law claims, the defendants assert what are called affirmative defenses.
After providing this framework for the state law claims, the court directed the jury’s attention to the IIED claim, explaining:
And so, in looking at the two state claims, you have the intentional infliction of emotional distress. And then, in jury instruction number 20, you have the defense of privilege and the elements that *1021have to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
So when you are considering that defense, you consider the totality of the circumstances. You consider what went in to the claims that you analyzed, the elements of those claims and all the evidence that bears on that. Then you analyze the elements of the defense, all the evidence that bears on that.
And there should be consistency-and that was your concern-between those findings. The consistency is a function of how you find the facts, which evidence you believe, how much weight you give to the evidence.
In this context, the court’s reference to “consistency” could mean only that the jury’s factual findings had to be internally consistent and reconcilable with its ultimate conclusion as to the IIED claim and the privilege defense. The court’s statement may not be a model of clarity, but we are confident that no reasonable jury could have understood it as a direction to return a verdict wholly in favor of one party.
In sum, Defendants have not identified any error in the district court’s supplemental jury instructions, let alone a plain error.
B.
Defendants also challenge several of the district court’s evidentiary rulings. We review a district court’s eviden-tiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Gribben v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 528 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir.2008). We will reverse on the basis of an erroneous evi-dentiary ruling only if the error was prejudicial. Harper v. City of L.A., 533 F.3d 1010, 1030 (9th Cir.2008); Tritchler v. Cnty. of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.2004). Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony that Coach Sinclair thought that C.B. might be suicidal and in allowing testimony about past incidents in which police had used handcuffs at Sonora Elementary School.
It is undisputed that Coach Sinclair did not, at any point, tell the officers that she thought C.B. might be suicidal, nor did the officers otherwise learn that information. The district court correctly reasoned that testimony that Coach Sinclair thought C.B. might be suicidal was irrelevant; information that the officers did not know could not justify their decision to seize C.B. See Moreno v. Baca, 431 F.3d 633, 640 (9th Cir.2005) (recognizing that an outstanding arrest warrant for the plaintiff could not be used to justify his arrest where the arresting officers had no knowledge of the warrant). Moreover, the court stated that if Coach Sinclair’s motive for calling the police was questioned, she would be able to testify about the incident in which C.B. told her he wanted to run out into traffic. The court, however, concluded that the prejudicial effect of testimony characterizing C.B. as “suicidal” outweighed any probative value such testimony might have. Where “[t]he record reflects that the court conscientiously weighed the probative value against the prejudicial effect for each piece of evidence,” we will not reverse. Boyd v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 576 F.3d 938, 949 (9th Cir.2009).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in allowing Coach Sinclair to testify about past incidents of handcuffing at Sonora Elementary School. To prove his Fourth Amendment claim against the City of Sonora, C.B. had to prove that the city maintained an unlawful custom or practice that was a cause of his constitutional injury. See Fairley v. Luman, 281 F.3d 913, 916 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. *1022Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)). Here, C.B. sought to do just that by introducing testimony from Coach Sinclair that the Sonora Police Department, as a matter of routine procedure, employed handcuffs any time it removed an elementary school child from school grounds. “We have long recognized that a custom or practice can be inferred from widespread practices or evidence of repeated constitutional violations for which the errant municipal officers were not discharged or reprimanded.” Hunter, 652 F.3d at 1233 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1147-48 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that testimony from individuals whom officers prohibited from wearing anti-WTO buttons created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Seattle had an unconstitutional policy of restricting only anti-WTO speech). The district court properly rejected Defendants’ contention that Coach Sinclair’s testimony about prior incidents of handcuffing at Sonora Elementary School was irrelevant. Nor can Defendants protest that the evidence was unduly prejudicial because it created an inference of an unlawful municipal custom or policy; that was the very purpose of the evidence. Because the district court’s evi-dentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse the judgment on this basis.
C.
Next we turn to Chief McIntosh’s and Officer Prock’s qualified immunity arguments. We review de novo a district court’s qualified immunity order denying judgment as a matter of law. La-Londe v. Cnty. of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir.2000); see also A.D. v. Cal. Highway Patrol, 712 F.3d 446, 453 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 531, 187 L.Ed.2d 394 (2013).12 In doing so, we “view all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-mover, and disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.” Harper, 533 F.3d at 1021. To determine whether an individual officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask (1) whether the official violated a constitutional right and (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 236, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009); AD., 712 F.3d at 453-54.
1.13
a.
C.B. argues that his seizure violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. The Fourth Amendment provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable searches and seizures!] shall not be violated....” As a general principle, “Fourth Amendment seizures are reasonable only if based on prob*1023able cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime.” Bailey v. United States, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1031, 1037, 185 L.Ed.2d 19 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has recognized a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement “when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the ... requirement impracticable.” Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Court first recognized that “[t]he school setting ... requires some modification of the level of suspicion of illicit activity needed to justify a search.” 469 U.S. 325, 340, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985). Acknowledging that the “privacy interests of school children” must be balanced against the “substantial need of teachers and administrators for freedom to maintain order in the schools,” the Court held that, in the school setting, a search by teachers or school officials need only be reasonable under all the circumstances. Id. at 341, 105 S.Ct. 733. It explained the reasonableness inquiry as follows:
Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider whether the ... action was justified at its inception; second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be justified at its inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.
Id. at 341-42, 105 S.Ct. 733 (internal quotation marks, citations, and footnotes omitted). We, and several of our sister circuits, have extended T.L.O. to seizures of students by school officials. Doe ex rel. Doe v. Haw. Dep’t of Educ., 334 F.3d 906, 909 (9th Cir.2003); see also Wallace ex rel. Wallace v. Batavia Sch. Dist. 101, 68 F.3d 1010, 1012-14 (7th Cir.1995); Hassan ex rel. Hassan v. Lubbock Indep. Sch. Dist., 55 F.3d 1075, 1079-80 (5th Cir.1995); Edwards ex rel. Edwards v. Rees, 883 F.2d 882, 884 (10th Cir.1989).
T.L.O. is distinguishable from this case in a critical respect: T.L.O. involved the conduct of school administrators, not law enforcement officers. 469 U.S. at 328, 105 S.Ct. 733. We have not yet decided whether T.L.O.’s reasonableness standard or, instead, traditional Fourth Amendment rules apply to law enforcement searches and seizures in school settings, and there is no need to do so today.14 At the time of *1024the incident, at least two of our sister, circuits had held that T.L.O.’s reasonableness standard governs law enforcement conduct concerning school-related incidents in school settings. See Gray ex rel. Alexander v. Bostic, 458 F.3d 1295, 1304 (11th Cir.2006) (applying T.L.O. in analyzing an unlawful seizure claim against deputy at an elementary school); Shade v. City of Farmington, 309 F.3d 1054, 1060-61 (8th Cir.2002) (applying T.L.O. to evaluate the legality of a search conducted by law enforcement officers in conjunction with school officials). Consequently, at the time of this incident, an officer could have reasonably believed that T.L.O. governed law enforcement searches and seizures on school grounds for school-related purposes.
Nonetheless, applying T.L.O.’s reasonableness standard does not aid Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to C.B., see Harper, 533 F.3d at 1021, the officers knew only the following when they decided to handcuff C.B. and remove him from school grounds: (1) the school had reported an “out of control” juvenile; (2) C.B. was a “runner” — whatever that may mean — who had not taken some unknown medication; (3) C.B. sat quietly looking at the ground and never made any movements the whole time police were present; (4) C.B. was unresponsive in the three and a half minutes during which Officer Prock tried to engage with him; and (5) Coach Sinclair wanted C.B. removed from the school grounds.
The officers acted reasonably at the outset by seeking to engage with C.B: to investigate the dispatch that they had received about an “out of control” minor. What they found, though, was a quiet but nonresponsive child. During the entire time police were present, the child did nothing threatening or disobedient. Although Coach Sinclair mentioned that C.B. was a “runner” who had not taken his medication, the officers did not ask a single follow-up question to learn what Coach Sinclair meant and never inquired what had prompted the dispatch. Nor did they consider any less intrusive solutions, such as ordering C.B. to return inside the school building, or asking a guardian to pick up the child.15 See T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 342, 105 S.Ct. 733 (explaining that a search must not be “excessively intrusive in light of ... the nature of the infraction”). When viewed in relation to these circumstances, the officers’ decision to seize C.B. and remove him from school grounds was not reasonable.
Judge Gould contends that this approach overlooks T.L.O.’s instruction that a school official’s judgment about the rules necessary to maintain school order is entitled to deference. Gould Concurrence at 1038-39. No one seriously questions that principle. Coach Sinclair and other school officials set the rules that govern student behavior, and they may require students to obey their instructions, to take their prescribed medications, to not run away, and so on. The adoption of such rules “presumably reflects a judgment on the part of school officials that such conduct is destructive of *1025school order or of a proper educational environment.” T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 343 n. 9, 105 S.Ct. 733. “Absent any suggestion that the rule violates some substantive constitutional guarantee,” we will defer to the school officials’ judgment that the rule furthers school order. Id. Coach Sinclair’s statement — “[r]unner[,] [n]o medicine”— was so vague, however, that it failed to establish that C.B. was even suspected of violating any school rule.16
That detail notwithstanding, at issue here is the reasonableness of the response to a purported violation of a school rule, not the reasonableness of the rule. Judge Gould would defer to Coach Sinclair’s determination that C.B. should be removed from campus. Gould Concurrence at 1039-40. But T.L.O. does not mandate any deference to a school official’s judgment about the appropriate response to a rule violation.17 Instead, T.L.O. requires assessing the reasonableness of the school official’s search or seizure in response to a rule violation by asking whether it was justified at its inception and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the initial intervention. 469 U.S. at 341, 105 S.Ct. 733. There is no question that if Coach Sinclair had removed C.B. from school grounds, our decision would not be based on any deference to her belief that such a seizure was appropriate. If the scope of a school official’s search or seizure is not entitled to .any deference, then surely, the same search or seizure carried out by a police officer at the behest of that school official must, at minimum, be subject to the same standards; that is, the scope of the ultimate search or seizure must be justified by objective circumstances, not a school official’s judgment about the proper course of action. Just because Coach Sinclair wanted C.B. removed from school grounds cannot ipso facto make such a seizure reasonable.18 To suggest otherwise is to eviscerate T.L.O.'s requirement that a search or seizure be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances,” id., and effectively to insulate searches and seizures sanctioned by school officials from any review.
Judge Gould also suggests that the need to act quickly prevented the officers from learning more. Gould Concurrence at 1039-40. Certainly, in some circumstances, the need to respond swiftly *1026trumps the need to obtain more information. But here, C.B. was calm, surrounded by multiple adults, and, by Chief McIntosh’s own characterization, “[n]ot likely” to run away. Nothing about the situation demanded an immediate response. Under these circumstances, the officers could have, and should have, asked some simple follow-up questions that would have enabled them to determine an appropriate response.
Nor does this position require police officers to engage in an “uncabined investigation” before responding to unfolding events, as the majority intimates. M. Smith Opin. at 1035. This approach only requires police officers to act reasonably under the circumstances. The standard is a familiar one, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and local police officers are quite capable of applying it in the real world.19 There is nothing remarkable about concluding that, in some circumstances, reasonableness requires asking a follow-up question to assess the circumstances before initiating a seizure.
In sum, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to C.B., a reasonable jury could conclude that Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock violated C.B.’s Fourth Amendment rights when they seized him and took him into custody.
b.
We next consider whether it was clearly established on September 28, 2009, that removing C.B. from school grounds was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. “For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). “This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful,” Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); indeed, “officials can still be on notice that then-conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances,” Hope, 536 U.S. at 741, 122 S.Ct. 2508. We should be “particularly mindful of this principle in the context of Fourth Amendment cases, where the constitutional standard — reasonableness — is always a very fact-specific inquiry.” Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 442 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc). However, where there is no case directly on point, “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2083, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011).
At the time of C.B.’s seizure, the law was clearly established that, at a minimum, police seizures at the behest of school officials had to be reasonable in light of the circumstances and not excessively intrusive. See, e.g., T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341-42, 105 S.Ct. 733; Doe, 334 F.3d at 909; Gray, 458 F.3d at 1304; Jones, 410 F.3d at 1228; Shade, 309 F.3d at 1060-61. Although the application of this constitutional principle may not be clear in certain circumstances, see Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 378-79, 129 S.Ct. 2633, 174 L.Ed.2d 354 (2009), this “general constitutional rule ... may [still] apply with obvious elarity'to the specific conduct *1027in question, even though ‘the very action in question has [not] previously been held unlawful,’ ” United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 271, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997) (alteration in original) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)).
This is such a case. The removal from school grounds of a compliant and calm 11-year-old child-a decision that was made sans any police investigation, without any knowledge of disobedience, and after only minutes on the scene-is an obvious violation of the constitutional principle that the nature of the seizure of a schoolchild must be justified by the circumstances. Even without on-point case law, it is beyond dispute that police officers cannot seize a schoolchild who they do not know to have committed any wrongdoing, who does not appear to pose any threat to himself or others, and who engages in no act of resistance the entire time the officers are present.20
Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock do not argue that T.L.O. justified seizing C.B., In fact, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity only because they reasonably, even if mistakenly, believed they had “reasonable cause”21 to take C.B. into custody pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions Code sections 601(a) and 625(a). An officer who reasonably but mistakenly believes that his actions are warranted under state law may be entitled to qualified immunity. Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. L.A. Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t, 533 F.3d 780, 791-93 (9th Cir.2008); Grossman v. City of Portland, 33 F.3d 1200, 1209 (9th Cir.1994). California Welfare & Institutions Code section 601(a) provides:
Any person under the age of 18 years who persistently or habitually refuses to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of his or her parents, guardian, or custodian, or who is beyond the control of that person ... is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge the minor to be a ward of the court.
Section 625(a) provides that “[a] peace officer may, without a warrant, take into temporary custody a minor ... [w]ho is under the age of 18 years when such officer has reasonable cause for believing that such minor is a person described in Section 601.”
Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock contend that they reasonably thought that C.B. was “beyond the control” of the relevant school officials, who they understood *1028to be the custodians of C.B. during school hours. However, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, no reasonable officer could have thought that C.B. was “beyond the control” of anyone. California case law makes clear that “by itself, a single act in violation of parental authority is ordinarily insufficient to establish that the minor is beyond parental control.” McIssac v. Bettye K. (In re Bettye K), 234 Cal.App.3d 143, 285 Cal.Rptr. 633, 636 (1991). In In re Henry G., the California Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence that Henry G. was beyond the control of his mother where he did not tell her where he was going, stayed out until 3 a.m., and struck her when she attempted to physically stop him from leaving the house. Kirkpatrick v. Henry G. (In re Henry G.), 28 Cal. App.3d 276, 104 Cal.Rptr. 585, 587, 589-90 (1972). Similarly, in In re D.J.B., the court explained that a single act may show that a minor is beyond control only when it is sufficiently serious, and the court held that a single instance of leaving home without parental consent did not rise to such a level. Bayes v. D.J.B. (In re D.J.B.), 18 Cal.App.3d 782, 96 Cal.Rptr. 146, 149 (1971). Cases in which a single instance of defiance was sufficient to find that a minor was beyond the control of a parent involved an extraordinarily serious act of defiance. See Bayes v. David S. (In re David S.), 12 Cal.App.3d 1124, 91 Cal. Rptr. 261, 263 (1970) (holding that a minor who had told his mother he would be spending the weekend with friends about 40 miles from home but who was actually found about 600 miles away from home attempting to cross the border into Mexico was beyond the control of his parents); see also In re Bettye K., 285 Cal.Rptr. at 636-37.
Here, when viewed in the light most favorable to C.B., the officers did not know of even a single instance of disobedience, much less one serious enough to trigger sections 601(a) and 625(a). C.B. did not take his medicine, but the officers had no basis to conclude that he had refused to do so and did not know what kind of medication it was. C.B. was purportedly a “runner,” but the officers had no information that he had actually attempted to run from anyone that day. During the brief period before the officers decided to handcuff him, C.B. did not disobey any of their orders. And, as soon as they initiated the process of handcuffing and removing him from the school grounds, C.B. complied with all of their instructions. In sum, the officers knew of no defiant act by C.B.; any belief that C.B. was beyond the school’s control was not reasonable because it lacked any basis in fact. Moreover, even assuming it was reasonable to believe that C.B. had earlier defied a schbol official by refusing medicine and running, it was apparent that C.B. had not run off school grounds and was, instead, sitting calmly in the school playground. Such a singular instance of disobedience does not even come close to satisfying the statutory requirement that the minor be “beyond the control” of his custodian. See In re Bettye K., 285 Cal.Rptr. at 636-37; In re Henry G., 104 Cal.Rptr. at 587, 589-90; In re D.J.B., 96 Cal.Rptr. at 149; In re David S., 91 Cal.Rptr. at 263. An officer who enforces a state statute “in a manner which a reasonable officer would recognize exceeds the bounds of the [statute] will not be entitled to immunity even if there is no clear case law declaring the [statute] or the officer’s particular conduct unconstitutional.” Grossman, 33 F.3d at 1210.22
*1029Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock argue that their belief that sections 601(a) and 625(a) applied in this instance was reasonable because Coach Sinclair allegedly told Chief McIntosh that C.B. was “out of control,” “would run off campus,” and was “yelling and cussing.”23 Whatever the merits of the argument that a reasonable officer might have believed that sections 601(a) and 625(a) justified taking a child into custody in light of these additional facts, that is not the scenario presented here. Neither Coach Sinclair nor C.B.— the other witnesses present during this purported exchange — recalls Coach Sinclair making these statements. Although it is possible that C.B.’s and Coach Sinclair’s recollections are incomplete, when taking the facts in the light most favorable to C.B., see Harper, 533 F.3d at 1021, it must be assumed that it is Chief McIntosh’s account that is inaccurate.24
Based on the foregoing, Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock are not, in my view, entitled to qualified immunity with respect to C.B.’s unlawful seizure claim.
2.
a.
C.B. also argues that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when, upon removing him from school grounds, they handcuffed C.B. for twenty-five to thirty minutes. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from an arrest effectuated through excessive force. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394-95, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); Wall v. Cnty. of Orange, 364 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2004). C.B. argues that the officers’ conduct was unreasonable under the test set out in Graham. Under Graham, whether the amount of force. employed was excessive depends on “the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to he safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865.
We have previously applied T.L.O.’s reasonableness standard to evaluate whether a school official was entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force claim. See Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1179-81 (9th Cir. 2007). Additionally, at the time of the incident, at least two of our sister circuits had held that T.L.O.’s reasonableness standard governs law enforcement searches and seizures concerning school-related incidents in school settings. See Gray, 458 F.3d at 1304; Shade, 309 F.3d at 1060-61. We have not yet considered whether Graham or T.L.O. applies to law enforcement officers’ use of force against a student in a school setting, and we do not resolve that question today. But we believe that Preschooler II, Gray, and Shade could have led a reasonable officer to conclude that T.L.O. governs police use of force in response to school-related incidents as well. In no event, however, do we think that an officer could have reasonably believed that T.L.O. governs police use of force once a student is in police custody and outside the confines of the school setting, as C.B. was *1030throughout the commute to his uncle’s place of business.
Ultimately, in our view, whether T.L.O. or Graham governed Chief McIntosh’s and Officer Prock’s actions at any given moment is of little consequence. Chief McIntosh’s and Officer Prock’s use of handcuffs on a calm, compliant, but nonresponsive 11-year-old child was unreasonable under either standard. Other than an assertion that they were told C.B. might run away, Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock offer no justification for their decision to use handcuffs on C.B. During the entire incident, C.B. never did anything that suggested he might run away or that he otherwise posed a safety threat. He weighed about 80 pounds and was approximately 4'8" tall-by no means a large child. Moreover, he was surrounded by four or five adults at all times. The police department’s own policy manual cautions against using handcuffs on children under the age of 14 unless the child has committed “a dangerous felony or when they are of a state of mind which suggests a reasonable probability of their desire to escape, injure themselves, the officer, or to destroy property.” Even Chief McIntosh admitted that it was “[n]ot likely” that C.B. could run away. In these circumstances, we conclude that the decision to use handcuffs on C.B. was unreasonable, notwithstanding Coach Sinclair’s unexplained statement that C.B. was a “runner.” The further decision to leave C.B. in handcuffs for the duration of the half-hour commute to his uncle’s business-a commute that took place in a vehicle equipped with safety locks that made escape impossible-was clearly unreasonable.
Judge Smith counters that the use of handcuffs was justified because C.B. might have attempted to run at various points during their interaction, risking serious harm to himself. M. Smith Opin. at 1036-37. But there is no evidence that C.B. was likely to run; even Chief McIntosh himself thought it unlikely that C.B. would be able to flee. See Tolan v. Cotton, - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1863, 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014) (per curiam) (overturning grant of qualified immunity because the lower court did not view the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party). “Anything is possible” is not a sufficient basis to handcuff a child who poses no likely threat of any kind.
b.
At the time of the incident, the law was also clearly established that, at a minimum, police use of force in response to school-related incidents had to be reasonable in light of the circumstances and not excessively intrusive. See T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341-42, 105 S.Ct. 733; Preschooler II, 479 F.3d at 1179-81. And the law was clearly established that, as a general matter, police use of force must be carefully calibrated to respond to the particulars of a case, including the wrongdoing at issue, the safety threat posed by the suspect, and the risk of flight. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865. Although these general standards “cannot always, alone, provide fair notice to every reasonable law enforcement officer that his or her conduct is unconstitutional,” Mattos, 661 F.3d at 442, “in an obvious case, these standards can ‘clearly establish’ the answer, even without a body of relevant case law.” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 199, 125 S.Ct. 596, 160 L.Ed.2d 583 (2004) (per curiam).
Applying handcuffs to C.B., and keeping him handcuffed for the approximately thirty minutes it took to drive to his uncle’s business, was an obvious violation of these standards. It is beyond dispute that handcuffing a small, calm child who is surrounded by numerous adults, who complies *1031with all of the officers’ instructions, and who is, by an officer’s own account, unlikely to flee, was completely unnecessary and excessively intrusive. Moreover, none of the Graham factors even remotely justified keeping C.B. handcuffed for approximately thirty minutes in the back seat of a safety-locked vehicle.
Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock argue that because they were reasonable in taking C.B. into custody pursuant to the California Welfare & Institutions Code sections 601(a) and 626(a), their use of handcuffs was also reasonable because California Penal Code section 835 provides that an individual under arrest “may be subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and detention.” Even if California law permitted the level of force used here-which it does not-that would have no bearing on whether the officers violated clearly established federal law. See Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2009). California Penal Code section 835 cannot shield the officers from liability for a clear constitutional violation.
In sum, we hold that Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock are not entitled to qualified immunity for handcuffing C.B.
D.
Finally, we turn to Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to an offset against damages because of C.B.’s settlement with the Sonora School District. Defendants argue that they are entitled to an offset under California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.25 Section 877 provides that, when a plaintiff enters into a settlement with one or more joint tortfea-sors, “it shall reduce the claims against the other[] [tortfeasors] in the amount stipulated by the [settlement].” “Whether individuals are joint tortfeasors under [section] 877 depends upon whether they caused ‘one indivisible injury’ or ‘the same wrong.’ ” Decker v. Tramiel (In re JTS Corp.), 617 F.3d 1102, 1116 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting May v. Miller, 228 Cal.App.3d 404, 278 Cal.Rptr. 341, 344 (1991); see also Lafayette v. Cnty. of L.A., 162 Cal.App.3d 547, 208 Cal.Rptr. 668, 672 (1984)). C.B. contends that Defendants are not entitled to an offset because the Sonora School District caused a distinct injury. We need not resolve this issue because Defendants have not met their burden to show that they are entitled to an offset for another reason.
California Civil Code section 1431.2(a) provides that liability for economic damages is joint and several, but liability for noneconomic damages is apportioned according to the principles of comparative fault.26 California courts have *1032interpreted California Civil Code section 1431.2 as limiting California Code of Civil Procedure section 877 to economic damages only. See Greathouse v. Amcord, Inc., 35 Cal.App.4th 831, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 564 (1995) (“It is now well established that Code of Civil Procedure section 877 allows [the defendants] to set off settlement payments only for economic damages against the jury’s verdict. Settlement payments attributable to non-economic damages are not subject to the setoff.”); Espinoza v. Machonga, 9 Cal.App.4th 268, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 498, 502 (1992) (explaining that there can be no offset for noneconomic damages because a “plaintiff’s valid ‘claim’ against one ... tortfeasor for non-economic damages can never be the liability of ‘the others’ ” (quoting Cal. Civ.Code § 1431.2)). Consequently, in calculating offsets, California courts look to the percentage of the jury’s award that is attributable to noneconomic damages and reduce the award by that same proportion of the settlement. See Conrad v. Ball Corp., 24 Cal.App.4th 439, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 443 (1994); Espinoza, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d at 504. But, where “the special verdict [does] not specify economic and noneco-nomic damages, but merely award[s] an undifferentiated lump sum,” and the defendant failed to propose such a special verdict, the defendant is deemed to have waived any right to any offset. Conrad, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d at 443-44. This is because “[a] defendant seeking an offset against a money judgment has the burden of proving the offset.” Id. at 444.
Here, Defendants- initially did propose a jury instruction that distinguished between economic and noneconomic damages. However, when the court provided its proposed jury instructions and verdict form, Defendants did not object to the exclusion of their proposed allocation. The court specifically asked Defendants if they had any objections to either the proposed jury instructions or the verdict form, and Defendants objected to unrelated portions of the jury instructions, but not the omission of their proposed question about damages on the verdict form. By failing to object to an undifferentiated verdict form, Defendants have not met their burden to show what portion of the jury’s award was for economic damages. See Conrad, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d at 443-44; cf. Grosvenor Props. Ltd. v. Southmark Corp., 896 F.2d 1149, 1152-53 (9th Cir. 1990) (recognizing that mere submission of an alternative proposed instruction is insufficient to preserve for appeal an objection to the instruction given). Consequently, the district court did not err in refusing to award Defendants a $20,000 offset against the jury’s damages award.
III. Conclusion
We conclude that Defendants have not identified any plain error in the district court’s jury instructions, the district court’s evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion, and Defendants have not shown they are entitled to a settlement offset. Furthermore, we hold that Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock are not entitled to qualified immunity because no officer could have reasonably believed that their use of handcuffs to remove C.B. from school grounds complied with the Fourth Amendment. However, as set forth in Judge M. Smith’s majority opinion, the district court’s ruling on Chief McIntosh’s *1033and Officer Prock’s motion for judgment as a matter of law denying them qualified immunity on C.B.’s Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim is reversed.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part. The judgment against Chief Mace McIntosh is reduced by $15,000. The judgment against Officer Hal Prock is reduced by $5,000.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
C.B. shall recover his costs on appeal against the City of Sonora; no costs are awarded against Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock. •

. According to Officer Prock, when he called the business number on C.B.’s emergency contact list, C.B.'s uncle advised him that C.B.'s parents were out of town and unreachable and that he was currently taking care of C.B.

. At trial, Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock did not recall this exchange.

. Although the court said that it would provide corrected verdict forms, the final verdict form still referenced the wrong damages question in relation to the IIED claim.

. Question 10, on page 11 of the verdict form, concerned probable cause, the affirmative defense for the false arrest claim. Earlier, C.B.'s counsel had advised the court that the verdict form incorrectly directed the jury to answer Question 11D, the damages question for false arrest, if it found that Defendants had proved probable cause. The court agreed that the instruction should have read: " 'If you answer yes as to any defendant' — then it should be do not answer 11D. If you answer the question no as to — it should be either defendant, answer question 11D.” Consequently, after responding to the jury's question, the court advised the jury of this error and indicated it would provide a corrected page 11. The final verdict form does, in fact, reflect the correct instruction on page 11.

. Because the three-judge panel opinion vacated and remanded for a new trial, it did not reach the remainder of Defendants’ arguments. C.B., 730 F.3d at 824 n. 4.

. Although we have previously refused to review jury instructions in the absence of a timely objection at trial, we have reviewed for plain error evidentiary, closing argument, and attorney misconduct challenges that were not contemporaneously raised at trial. See, e.g., Settlegoode v. Portland Pub. Sch., 371 F.3d 503, 516-17 (9th Cir.2004); Hemmings v. Ti-dyman's Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1193 (9th Cir. 2002); Bird v. Glacier Electric Coop., Inc., 255 F.3d 1136, 1148 (9th Cir.2001); Beachy v. Boise Cascade Corp., 191 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1999); McClaran v. Plastic Indus., Inc., 97 F.3d 347, 357 n. 9 (9th Cir.1996). The standard that we adopt now for reviewing belated objections to civil jury instructions is consistent with our standard for reviewing other untimely objections in civil cases.

.Compare United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (explaining that before a court will consider a forfeited objection in the criminal context, "[tjhere must be an ‘error’ that is ‘plain’ and that 'affect[s] substantial rights,' ” and, even then, "the decision to correct the forfeited error [is] within the sound discretion of the court of appeals, and the court should not exercise that discretion unless the error 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings' ” (some alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. *10171038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985))), with Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. v. Fendi USA, Inc., 314 F.3d 48, 61 (2d Cir.2002) (explaining that in the civil context review is limited to "fundamental error,” which is an error that is "so serious and flagrant that it goes to the very integrity of the trial” (internal quotation marks omitted)), Babcock v. Gen. Motors Corp., 299 F.3d 60, 64-65 (1st Cir.2002)’ (recognizing that reversal for plain error in the civil context requires that “(1) there be error; (2) the error was plain’ (i.e.[,] obvious and clear under current law); (3) the error affected substantial rights; and (4) the error threatened a miscarriage of justice”), Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council-President Gov’t, 279 F.3d 273, 293-94 (5th Cir.2002) (stating that to reverse for plain error in civil jury instructions, the court "must find an obviously incorrect statement of law that was probably responsible for an incorrect verdict, leading to substantial injustice”), Black v. M & W Gear Co., 269 F.3d 1220, 1232 (10th Cir.2001) ("[T]his court will not review instructions given to which no objections were lodged before the jury retired for deliberation unless they are patently plainly erroneous and prejudicial.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and Fashauer v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 57 F.3d 1269, 1289 (3d Cir.1995) ("[W]e should notice the error only if it is fundamental and highly prejudicial or if the instructions are such that the jury is without adequate guidance on a fundamental question and our failure to consider the error would result in a miscarriage of justice.” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).

. See, e.g., Bauer v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 680 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir.2012) (relying on Olano for the plain error standard of review under Rule 51); Diaz-Fonseca v. Puerto Rico, 451 F.3d 13, 36 (1st Cir.2006) ("To succeed under the plain error standard, defendants must show that: (1) an error was committed; (2) the error was plain (i.e.[J obvious and clear under current law); (3) the error was prejudicial (i.e.[,] affected substantial rights); and (4) review is needed to prevent a miscarriage of justice, meaning that the error seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Higbee v. Sentry Ins. Co., 440 F.3d 408, 409 (7th Cir.2006) ("The Advisory Committee notes to the new Rule 51 make clear that we *1018should be guided by the principles of plain error in the criminal context.").

. We are not alone in recognizing that Rule 51’s plain error standard is stricter than its criminal counterpart. See, e.g., Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938, 950 (8th Cir.2010) ("Plain error is a stringently limited standard of review, especially in the civil context. (internal quotation marks omitted)); SEC v. DiBella, 587 F.3d 553, 569 (2d Cir.2009) (noting that the standard of review in the civil context "is more stringent than the plain error standard applicable to criminal appeals under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b)” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

. See Jimenez v. Wood Cnty., 660 F.3d 841, 845 (5th Cir.2011) (en banc) (explaining that the court has discretion to correct an unpre-served error if it meets the plain error standard); Higbee, 440 F.3d at 409 (recognizing that plain error review is discretionary); Franklin Prescriptions, Inc. v. N.Y. Times Co., 424 F.3d 336, 341 (3d Cir.2005) (“Plain error review is discretionary-it should be exercised sparingly and should only be invoked with extreme caution in the civil context." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

. Defendants contend that plain error review should not govern this case because (1) they lacked the opportunity to object to the district court's extemporaneous instructions, (2) their request that the district court direct the jury to begin re-deliberating with the question regarding false arrest served as adequate notice to the court of the nature of their objection, and (3) C.B. waived any argument that Defendants did not preserve their objections to the jury instructions by failing to raise it before the district court.
We reject these arguments. First, Defendants are correct that C.B. failed to argue, in opposition to Defendants' Motion for a New Trial, that Defendants did not preserve their objections to the district court’s supplemental jury instructions. However, we may consider C.B.'s argument nonetheless because it raises a purely legal question and Defendants have offered no reason why C.B.'s failure to raise this argument in his post-trial briefs has prejudiced them. See Zhang v. Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1035 (9th Cir. 2003). Second, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(c)(2) provides that an objection to a jury instruction is timely if a party was not informed of an instruction in advance, and the party objects promptly after the instruction has been given. Defendants therefore could have objected to the supplemental instructions after they were given, but they failed to do so. Finally, Defendants' request that the jury be instructed to begin deliberating with the question on false arrest, falls far short of Rule 51(c)(1)'s requirement that a litigant "stat[e] distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 51(c)(1); see also Hunter, 652 F.3d at 1231 (recognizing that " 'objections to a charge must be sufficiently specific to bring into focus the precise nature of the alleged error’ ” (quoting Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 119, 63 S.Ct. 477, 87 L.Ed. 645 (1943))).

. C.B. argues that Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock waived their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) qualified immunity argument because they failed to make a timely Rule 50(a) motion. Because C.B. failed to raise this argument below, it is waived. See Graves v. City of Coeur D’Alene, 339 F.3d 828, 838-39. (9th Cir.2003) (holding that when a party does not raise its opponent’s failure to abide by Rule 50(a) in district court, on appeal, the procedural flaw in the Rule 50(b) motion is waived), abrogated on other grounds by Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 177, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004).

. Part II.C.l, in which Judge Silverman joins, is Judge Paez's dissent from the majority’s holding that Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock are entitled to qualified immunity on C.B.’s Fourth Amendment seizure claim.

. As to law enforcement searches and seizures that pursue law enforcement objectives, we held in Greene v. Camreta that the “special needs” doctrine did not apply to seizures on school grounds in which “law enforcement personnel and purposes were ... deeply involved.” 588 F.3d 1011, 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court vacated that holding as moot, but did not disapprove our reasoning. Camreta v. Greene,-U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2020, 2026-27, 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011); see also Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d 1221, 1228 (10th Cir.2005) (holding that because a seizure by a deputy sheriff on school grounds “does not involve efforts by school administrators to preserve order on school property, it does not implicate the policy concerns addressed in T.L.O. and therefore does not merit application of the T.L.O. standard,” but de-*1024dining to specify which Fourth Amendment standard does apply).

. In fact, C.B.’s uncle testified that Officer Prock reached him on the telephone, and informed him that “the school had called the police department out and [C.B.] could be picked up or needed to be transported to our business.” C.B.’s uncle responded, "Well, I would normally pick him up,” to which the officer replied, "Well, we’ve already got him in the car and we’d like to bring him to you. We want to bring him to your place of business.” C.B.’s uncle recalled ”agree[ing] to that, wanting to comply with the police department.”

. This does not mean that police officers cannot rely on school officials’ statements. School officials undoubtedly possess valuable information that would assist police in determining the proper course of action in many cases. But where the school official offers only cursory and ambiguous statements that do not explain what happened and the officers do not observe any behavior that might shed light on what happened, it is unreasonable for the officers to simply presume a safety threat warranting seizure and removal from school grounds.

. Deferring to a school official's judgment that C.B. should be removed from school grounds is not the kind of " 'common-sense' conclusion' that T.L.O. was intended to permit.” Gould Concurrence at 1039 (quoting T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 346, 105 S.Ct. 733). T.L.O. was referring to the reasonable conclusion that a suspected smoker might be stowing cigarettes in her purse. 469 U.S. at 346, 105 S.Ct. 733. No additional facts were necessary to justify searching the purse because common sense suggested that the purse was a natural place to check. The parallel between that scenario and this one is illusive at best.

.Judge Gould characterizes Coach Sinclair’s request as ‘‘facially reasonable.” Gould Concurrence at 1039. Yet her request was unaccompanied by any meaningful explanation of what C.B. had done to prompt calling the police, and C.B. remained calm and quiet during the entire time police were present. If these circumstances render a request to remove a child from school grounds "facially reasonable,” what must transpire before a request would be labeled facially unreasonable?

. T.L.O.’s standard is based on Terry's reasonable suspicion standard. See T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341, 105 S.Ct. 733.

. The Supreme Court's holding in Safford that a school official's decision to strip search a middle school child suspected of bringing drugs to school, without any suspicion that the child was hiding the drugs in her underwear, was not an obvious violation of clearly established law, see 557 U.S. at 377-79, 129 S.Ct. 2633, does not warrant a contrary outcome. In Safford, the Court indicated that, in novel circumstances, T.L.O.’s general standards will rarely make obvious the boundaries of a constitutional search. See id. But this is not a case that turns on the boundaries of a reasonable search or seizure in light of the circumstances. See Gray, 458 F.3d at 1305, 1307 (explaining that handcuffing for at least five minutes a 9-year-old who did not pose a threat to anyone was "well beyond the hazy border that sometimes separates lawful conduct from unlawful conduct” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Rather, this case involves a scenario where, on the facts known to the officers, there was simply no basis for any kind of seizure. At the very least, T.L.O. makes obvious that there must be some basis for a search or seizure of any scope.

. Defendants expend a great deal of energy arguing about the difference between "reasonable cause” as used in the California Welfare & Institutions Code and the traditional concept of "probable cause.” If there is a difference between the standards, this case does not turn on it.

. Because C.B.’s conduct could not possibly satisfy the "beyond the control” prong of the statute, there is no need to consider whether *1029the term "custodian” as used in section 601(a) includes school authorities.

. Notably, neither the officers nor Coach Sinclair ever testified that Coach Sinclair told Chief McIntosh that C.B. would "run off campus.”

. Accordingly, there is no need to decide whether, under the version of events most favorable to the officers, Chief McIntosh and Officer Prock were justified in seizing C.B. pursuant to sections 601(a) and 625(a), although that is a dubious proposition.

. It is not clear that California law, as opposed to federal law, governs Defendants' settlement offset claim in a case such as this one, which involves both federal and state law claims. See Corder v. Brown, 25 F.3d 833, 839-40 (9th Cir.1994) (recognizing that courts are split as to whether state law or federal common law determines a defendant's entitlement to an offset in suits involving federal claims but declining to resolve the split because the text of the particular federal statute at issue permitted an offset). Defendants argue only that they are entitled to an offset under California Code of Civil Procedure section 877. As we explain in text, even if section 877 applied here, Defendants would not be entitled to an offset. Accordingly, we need not decide whether state or federal law applies.

. California Civil Code section 1431.2(b) defines economic and noneconomic damages as follows:
(1) For purposes of this section, the term “economic damages” means objectively verifiable monetary losses including medical expenses, loss of earnings, burial costs, loss of use of property, costs of repair or replacement, costs of obtaining substitute domestic services, loss of employment and *1032loss of business or employment opportunities.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term "non-economic damages” means subjective, non-monetary losses including, but not limited to, pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation.

. The Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he general proposition ... that an unreasonable search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is of little help in determining whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. at 2084.