Rice v. Morehouse

• Decision Date: 08 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. 18-35459,18-35459
• Citation: 989 F.3d 1112
• Parties: Lee Arthur RICE II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dale MOREHOUSE; Nick Shaffer; Jeffrey A. Hill ; Mark Abercrombie, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

989 F.3d 1112

Lee Arthur RICE II, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Dale MOREHOUSE; Nick Shaffer; Jeffrey A. Hill ; Mark Abercrombie, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35459

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted November 8, 2019 Portland, Oregon

Filed March 8, 2021

Craig H. Durham (argued), Ferguson Durham PLLC, Boise, Idaho, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Erica J. White (argued), Heather H. McCarthy, and Catherine A. Freeman, Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys; Jan M. Bennetts, Ada County Prosecuting Attorney, Boise, Idaho, for Defendants-Appellees Dale Morehouse and Nick Shaffer.

Scott B. Muir (argued), Deputy City Attorney; Boise City Attorney's Office, Boise, Idaho, for Defendants-Appellees Mark Abercrombie and Jeffrey A. Hill.

Before: Ronald Lee Gilman,^* Richard A. Paez, and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

In the early morning of December 26, 2011, while driving with his family on Interstate 84 near Boise, Idaho, Lee Arthur Rice II was stopped by a state police officer for failing to signal for a full five seconds before changing lanes. Because he believed that there was no basis for the stop, Rice declined to give the officer his driver's license and car registration and repeatedly asked to speak to the officer's supervisor. The officer radioed for support, and over a dozen officers responded. Several officers pulled Rice out of the car. As they led him to the rear of the car, they tripped him so that he fell to the ground, pinned him down, and handcuffed him. Rice fell on his face and suffered long-term physical injuries and emotional distress as a result of the encounter. He ultimately filed suit against the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his constitutional rights, including his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure.

Rice appeals the district court's order granting partial summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in favor of the officers who tripped him to the ground. Because genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment, and the applicable law was clearly established at the time of the incident, we reverse.¹

I. BACKGROUND

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts were either undisputed at summary judgment or, if disputed, are recounted in the light most favorable to Rice, the non-moving party.

On December 26, 2011, at about 3:30 a.m., Rice was driving with his wife and her two teenage daughters when Idaho State Police Officer Janet Murakami stopped him.² According to Murakami, she initiated the traffic stop because Rice failed to signal for five seconds before changing lanes, Idaho Code § 49-808(1) – (2), and she suspected that Rice was driving under the influence. Rice pulled over to the right shoulder of the freeway, just over the fog line.³ Murakami approached the passenger's side of the car and asked for Rice's license, car registration, and proof of insurance. Rice showed Murakami his license through the window but declined to give Murakami the other documents. Murakami returned to her car and requested a "Code 3 assist" through her radio. According to the government's expert at summary judgment, a "Code 3" request is considered the "most urgent" request for backup officers and generally requires that they respond immediately and with lights and sirens running.

While assistance was on the way, Murakami re-approached Rice's car and again asked him for his license, registration, and proof of insurance. He declined. Murakami then walked to the driver's side of the car, opened the door, instructed Rice to exit, and announced that Rice was under arrest for "obstruction and delay." Rice provided his name but insisted "I will not get out of this car."

Murakami returned to her car and made two additional radio calls. In the second call, she radioed an update⁴ and stated "just uh waiting for my support units to get here before I extract this uh driver." Moments later, several police officers arrived, including Defendants-Appellees Dale Morehouse and Nick Shaffer. Murakami spoke to the arriving officers and explained:

MURAKAMI: K he's just not wanting, sir, yeah just one unit's necessary – he's just not wanting to comply with my instructions.

UNNAMED OFFICER: Okay.

MURAKAMI: He's already been told he's under arrest.

UNNAMED OFFICER: Okay.

MURAKAMI: All I wanted was his license, so I'm just going to need somebody to help me get him out of the car.⁵

UNNAMED OFFICER: Okay.

Although the record does not clearly identify which officers Murakami was speaking to, in their declarations in support of summary judgment, Morehouse and Shaffer paraphrased Murakami's comments in describing what they heard.

To determine the lawfulness of the officers' conduct throughout the encounter, the district court divided the events that followed into three stages: (1) officers pulling Rice from his car, (2) officers implementing a "take-down" of Rice, and (3) officers holding Rice on the ground in a "scrum"⁶ before handcuffing him. For clarity, we adopt the same three stages here.

1. The Removal

Murakami re-approached Rice's car from the driver's side, with Morehouse directly behind her. Murakami repeatedly instructed Rice to get out of the car and threatened to break his car window if he did not. Rice declined and repeatedly asked to speak to Murakami's supervisor, but did roll down his window and unlock the car. Murakami opened Rice's door, and, together, Murakami and Morehouse pulled him out from the car. In his declaration offered in opposition to summary judgment, Rice maintains that he did not resist the officers as they pulled him out of the car.

2. The Take-Down

After Murakami and Morehouse pulled Rice from the car, they attempted to hold Rice in a "police lead" position, grabbing his wrist with one hand and triceps with the other. Morehouse grabbed Rice's right arm, while Murakami grabbed his left. When Murakami was unable to grip Rice's arm, Shaffer stepped in, took Rice's left arm, and assumed the police lead position. Rice again maintains that he did not resist the officers. Nonetheless, as they approached the rear of the car, Shaffer and Morehouse tripped Rice and forcibly threw him to the ground using a "take-down" maneuver. Rice landed face-first on the pavement and suffered extreme pain.

3. The Scrum

While Rice lay on the ground, officers repeatedly struck and kneed him, wrenched his arms and shoulders, and twisted his fingers. He repeatedly asked "what are you doing?" and "why are you doing this?" Eventually, the officers handcuffed Rice, picked him up from the pavement, and took him to Murakami's car.

Criminal misdemeanor charges were filed against Rice but were later dismissed after the state court concluded that Murakami lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop Rice.

B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2013, Rice filed a pro se suit in the District Court for the District of Idaho against the officers involved in the arrest. His primary claims involved violations of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force and were brought against defendant Officers Murakami, Morehouse, Shaffer, Mark Abercrombie, and Jeffrey Hill. After Rice obtained counsel, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The district court ruled on the motions in December 2014 and April 2015. The court (1) denied Murakami qualified immunity as to her Code 3 call, but granted her motion in all other respects; (2) denied Morehouse and Shaffer qualified immunity as to their involvement in the scrum, but granted qualified immunity as to the take-down; and (3) denied qualified immunity to the other officers involved in the scrum, including Abercrombie and Hill.

Defendants appealed the qualified-immunity rulings. In November 2016, we affirmed except as to Murakami. We held that she was entitled to qualified immunity for her Code 3 call. Rice v. Murakami , 671 F. App'x 472 (9th Cir. 2016). As the panel explained, "[t]hough it is true that a person may be held responsible for the natural consequences of her actions, it is far from established that an officer should have reasonably foreseen that other officers responding to a call would use excessive force ...." Id. at 473.

The case proceeded to trial against defendants Morehouse, Shaffer, Abercrombie, and Hill for their alleged use of excessive force during the scrum. Following the presentation of all evidence by Rice, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) to all defendants except Abercrombie. The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of Abercrombie.

Rice filed a notice of appeal without counsel. We subsequently appointed pro bono counsel to represent him on appeal.

II. JURISDICTION

As a threshold matter, we address whether Rice's Notice of Appeal complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) such that we have jurisdiction. Morehouse and Shaffer argue that it does not because Rice did not specifically indicate that he was appealing from the district court's April 2015 summary judgment order granting their motion for summary judgment on the take-down. We disagree.

To take an appeal as of right in federal court, a party must file a notice of appeal within the time allowed by Rule 4.⁷ Fed. R. App. P. 3(a). The notice must, among other things, "designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed." Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B).

Although Rule 3's requirements are jurisdictional, Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. , 487 U.S. 312, 317, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988), "the Rule cautions against their formalistic application," West v. United States , 853 F.3d 520, 522 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(4) ). When a party's intent to appeal is objectively clear, "there are neither administrative concerns nor fairness concerns that should prevent the appeal from going forward." Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) advisory committee's note to 1993 amendments. Thus, "[w]hen a party seeks to argue the merits of an order that does not...