Excessive force in mental health restraint; Graham v Connor; Qualified immunity; 42 USC § 1983; Pearson v Callahan; Municipal liability & ratification; Fed R Civ P 56; Monell v Department of Soc Servs of the City of New York

The court held that although a reasonable jury could find the officer’s punch excessive, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the asserted right was not clearly established and the defendant-city could not be held liable under Monell. Plaintiff admitted himself to a hospital for mental health treatment, refused an antipsychotic injection, and was lightly restrained by staff when an off duty officer working security twisted his arm and then punched his head into a cinderblock wall, causing head trauma. The district court granted qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim but allowed a state assault and battery claim and rejected the Monell theory. On appeal, the court held that a jury could conclude the force was excessive because plaintiff’s “resistance was not violent,” he remained polite even as he pleaded, nurses said “we were still in control,” and one told the officer “you hit a restrained person,” while less violent means of restraint were available in the small room. The court also found that policy requiring that force not be “greater than necessary” and internal recommendations that the allegation “could be sustained” were relevant but not dispositive on constitutional reasonableness. The court further held that plaintiff failed the clearly established prong because no binding case held that a single punch used to control a mentally ill patient in a perceived medical emergency violated the Fourth Amendment, explaining that existing precedent did not place the question “beyond debate” and that the conduct fell within the “hazy border between excessive and acceptable force[.]” It also held that the police chief’s after the incident decision not to sustain discipline was not a final municipal policy or a “moving force” behind the injury. Affirmed.