Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Read v. Begbie
Citation: 68 F. App'x 36Docket: No. 02-15270; D.C. No. CV-00-00330-DWH
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; June 16, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Michelle Read appeals the district court's summary judgment favoring defendants Begbie and Cardella, claiming excessive force was used during her detention, violating the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment based on qualified immunity, concluding that a reasonable jury could not find excessive force based on the presented evidence. However, upon reviewing the facts favorably for Read, it is determined that a jury could potentially conclude that excessive force occurred when Cardella tripped Read and lifted her by the handcuffs. Read contends she was misled into entering her home to retrieve her son, did not hear commands to stop, and was compliant during the incident. The court finds that if a jury accepts Read's account, the force used was unnecessary, as her alleged misconduct was minor and she posed no immediate threat. The decision references case law indicating that where there is no need for force, its use is unreasonable. Notably, a reasonable officer would recognize that the actions described by Read were unlawful, as it was well established by November 1999 that using force on a subdued arrestee is impermissible. Thus, the appellate court reverses the district court's ruling and remands the case for further proceedings. Read's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim meets the criteria of Saucier’s two-prong test for qualified immunity, leading to a reversal of the district court's judgment and a remand for further proceedings. The district court's dismissal of Read's state law claims, based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), is also vacated, and those claims are to be reinstated. The court notes that this disposition is not suitable for publication or citation, except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. In her Amended Complaint, Read asserted that her 45-minute detention in a patrol car constituted an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment; however, this issue was not raised on appeal and is therefore considered waived. The district court granted summary judgment on all federal claims without specifically addressing Read's claim against the City of Sparks, implying that the City could not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to a lack of injury or constitutional violation. On remand, this claim will also be reinstated for the district court's consideration.