William Fletcher v. Marquardt ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM FLETCHER, No. 17-35862
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
1:15-CV-00029-REB
v.
MARQUARDT, Ada County Sheriff MEMORANDUM*
Deputy
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Ronald Bush, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2019
Seattle, Washington
Before: IKUTA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,** District
Judge
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for
the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.
1
Deputy Marquardt appeals the denial of summary judgment on the claim that
he used excessive force against Fletcher, a pretrial detainee in the Ada County jail.
Marquardt argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not use
excessive force and the law was not clearly established that his force was unlawful
under the circumstances. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
1. Marquardt argues he did not use excessive force in striking Fletcher
whom he contends was argumentative, noncompliant with instructions, and actively
resistant. A material dispute of fact exists regarding whether Marquardt gave
Fletcher instructions before striking him. Fletcher’s subjective complaints of pain
from the blows are also disputed. These disputes cannot be reconciled by simply
adopting Marquardt’s contentions. The district court did not err in finding the record
presented genuine issues of material fact on whether the force Marquardt
purposefully used against Fletcher was objectively unreasonable.
2. Marquardt argues there is no clearly established law that would inform
a reasonable deputy facing these specific facts that he could not employ the force
used to obtain compliance. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
Fletcher, Fletcher was compliant and did not provoke Marquardt. The law is clearly
established that a reasonable correctional officer cannot administer strong blows
upon a compliant pretrial detainee without violating the detainee’s right under the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to be free from objectively
2
unreasonable force purposely used against him. Felix v. McCarthy, 939 F.2d 699,
701 (9th Cir. 1991). The district court did not err in denying Marquardt’s motion
for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
AFFIRMED.
3