Jacobs v. Cumberland Cnty.

• Decision Date: 10 August 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-3269,19-3269
• Citation: 8 F.4th 187
• Parties: Raheem JACOBS v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY; Warden Robert Balicki; John Doe Corrections Officers 1-6, Fictitious Individuals; Michael Williams ; Neil Armstrong; Michael Anderson ; Emanual Morrero; Manual Velesquez Michael Williams, Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

8 F.4th 187

Raheem JACOBS

v.CUMBERLAND COUNTY; Warden Robert Balicki; John Doe Corrections Officers 1-6, Fictitious Individuals; Michael Williams ; Neil Armstrong; Michael Anderson ; Emanual Morrero; Manual Velesquez Michael Williams, Appellant

No. 19-3269

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1a: December 8, 2020

Filed: August 10, 2021

A. Michael Barker, Barker Gelfand & James, 210 New Road, Linwood Greene, Suite 12, Linwood, NJ 08221 Counsel for Appellant Michael Williams

Kevin P. McCann, Shanna McCann, Chance & McCann, 201 West Commerce Street, Bridgeton, NJ 08302, Counsel for Defendants Neil Armstrong, Michael Anderson, Emanual Morrero, and Manual Velesquez

Surinder K. Aggarwal, Stone Conroy, 25A Hanover Road, Suite 301, Florham Park, NJ 07932, Counsel for Appellee Raheem Jacobs

Before: MCKEE, PORTER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PORTER, Circuit Judge.

Raheem Jacobs got into a fight with another inmate while he was a pretrial detainee at Cumberland County Jail. Several minutes after the fight, a group of corrections officers forcibly removed him from the dorm. Jacobs claims that as the officers removed him, they violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from excessive force amounting to punishment. The officers moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. After reviewing the record (including a security video from the dorm) the District Court determined that a reasonable jury could find that the officers used gratuitous force and that any reasonable officer would have known that such force was unlawful. The court thus denied qualified immunity and summary judgment to the officers. One of the officers, Michael Williams, unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration. Williams now appeals. We will affirm both District Court orders.

I

Jacobs was held in the C dorm of Cumberland County Jail as he awaited trial for a weapons charge. On the morning of February 25, 2015, Jacobs got into a fight with Bruce Hanby, one of the other inmates housed in the C dorm. Less than thirty seconds after the fight ended, a group of corrections officers entered the dorm and identified Hanby as one of the fighters. The officers removed Hanby and took him to the medical unit. About fifteen minutes later, Williams and four of his fellow officers (Neil Armstrong, Michael Anderson, Emanual Morrero, and Manual Velesquez) returned for Jacobs. When the officers arrived, they found Jacobs in the shower. The officers told Jacobs to finish showering, get dressed, and gather his belongings so that they could take him to the medical unit.

As they waited for Jacobs to finish up, the officers standing outside the shower talked and laughed together while other officers chatted with the inmates. After a few minutes, Jacobs exited the shower and returned to his bunk. He donned his jumpsuit and then rummaged through items on his bed for about thirty seconds. The officers continued chatting with each other in an apparently casual manner, but eventually their focus shifted back to Jacobs. Officer Williams started speaking in the direction of Jacobs as Jacobs continued to look through papers and items on his bed. Then, in an instant, Officer Armstrong grabbed Jacobs and pulled him away from the bed as Williams and Anderson approached.

The parties dispute what prompted the officers to descend on Jacobs. Jacobs claims that he was shuffling through papers and searching for his family's phone numbers so that his bunkmate could call the family and let them know what happened. While Jacobs doesn't recall exactly what he and the officers said, he posits that the officers grabbed him because he was "taking too long." App. 153.

The officers tell a different story. Armstrong says that he asked Jacobs if he was looking for a weapon and Jacobs replied, "Maybe." App. 217. Williams never mentioned a weapon in his deposition, but his story is similar. He claims that after he saw Jacobs shuffling through the papers, he said, "[M]y man, get your stuff together, let's go," and immediately approached the bed to get a better view of what Jacobs was searching for. App. 186. As he approached, he asked Jacobs what he had in his hand and Jacobs responded with "something to the effect of F you guys, ... you guys are crazy." App. 191.

The jail security video recorded no audio, so we cannot determine what was said. But what happened next is clear from the video. After being grabbed by Armstrong, Jacobs did not resist as Armstrong tried to handcuff him. As Jacobs stood compliant with his hands behind his back, Williams approached and stood face to face with Jacobs. Within seconds, Williams delivered a strike to Jacobs's neck and a punch to the side of his head. After the first two blows, Armstrong put Jacobs into a neck hold and forced him to the floor as Williams delivered a backhand slap to Jacobs's face.

The security video failed to fully capture the next two portions of the incident. First, as Armstrong and Jacobs tumbled to the floor, they fell out of the security camera's view. The video shows Officer Anderson dropping to the floor to assist Armstrong, but it does not capture Armstrong's and Anderson's actions during the twenty-second period that Jacobs remained on the floor. According to Jacobs, the officers pinned him to the floor and punched and kneed him as they cuffed his hands behind his back. Second, as Officers Morrero and Armstrong escorted Jacobs to the medical unit, they used an elevator with no security camera. Jacobs alleges that as his hands were still cuffed behind his back the officers threw him face-first into the elevator wall and continued beating him.

On the day of the incident, each officer submitted a use-of-force report. None of the reports mentioned a threat of a weapon or Williams striking Jacobs. Jail and law-enforcement officials opened an investigation and determined that Williams used excessive force. After review, the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office charged Williams criminally.

Jacobs sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged, among other things, that the officers used excessive force in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.¹ The officers moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. At summary judgment, a district court must construe the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Bland v. City of Newark , 900 F.3d 77, 83 (3d Cir. 2018). In qualified-immunity cases, that "usually means adopting ... the plaintiff's version of the facts," Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 378, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007), unless "no reasonable jury could believe it," id. at 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769. But the existence of a security video presents an "added wrinkle." Id. at 378, 127 S.Ct. 1769. In cases where there is a reliable video depicting the events in question, courts must not adopt a version of the facts that is "blatantly contradicted" by the video footage. Id. at 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769.

Applying those standards, the court first analyzed Williams's conduct. The court noted that several documents from the investigation suggested that Williams's force was excessive. And far from blatantly contradicting Jacobs's version of events, the District Court found that the security video appeared largely consistent with Jacobs's side of the story.

The remaining officers fared no better. Because the security video failed to capture (1) what Jacobs, Williams, and Armstrong said before the incident; (2) what happened on the floor of C dorm; and (3) what happened on the elevator, the court adopted Jacobs's version of those disputed events. Using that version of the facts, the District Court concluded that each use of force violated Jacobs's constitutional rights² and that any reasonable officer would have known that such gratuitous force violated clearly established law. After unsuccessfully moving for reconsideration, Officer Williams timely appealed.³

II

The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction to review the District Court's denial of qualified immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the collateral-order doctrine. Bland , 900 F.3d at 82. Under the collateral-order doctrine, we have jurisdiction to "review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right." Dougherty v. Sch. Dist. of Phila ., 772 F.3d 979, 986 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Ziccardi v. City of Philadelphia , 288 F.3d 57, 61 (3d Cir. 2002) ). But we lack jurisdiction to "review questions of ‘evidence sufficiency.’ " Blaylock v. City of Philadelphia , 504 F.3d 405, 409 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Jones , 515 U.S. 304, 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) ). "That is, if a district court determines ‘that there is sufficient record evidence to support a set of facts under which there would be no immunity,’ we must accept that set of facts on interlocutory review." Id. (quoting Schieber v. City of Philadelphia , 320 F.3d 409, 415 (3d Cir. 2003) ). We will thus accept the District Court's rendering of the facts unless it is "blatantly contradicted" by the security video. Scott , 550 U.S. at 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769.

Given that set of facts, we analyze Officer Williams's qualified-immunity defense de novo. Bland , 900 F.3d at 83. Our qualified-immunity analysis consists of two questions: (1) whether this set of facts shows Williams violating a constitutional right, and (2) "whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have been] clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful.’ " El v. City of Pittsburgh , 975 F.3d 327, 334 (3d Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Lamont v. New Jersey , 637 F.3d 177, 182 (3d Cir. 2011) ).

III

Before we can decide whether the evidence depicts a violation of a constitutional right, we must first clarify what...