UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CORRELL L. THOMAS,
C. DILLARD, Police Officer,
PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
The panel reversed the district court’s order on summary judgment denying qualified immunity to Palomar College police officer Christopher Dillard and also reversed the district court’s partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unlawful seizure and excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.
Randall L. Winet, Winet Patrick Gayer Creighton & Hanes, Vista, California, for Defendant-Appellant.
Eugene G. Iredale (argued), Iredale and Yoo, San Diego, California; Mervyn S. Lazarus, Law Offices of Mervyn S. Lazarus, Newport Beach, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Thomas, the district court properly concluded Dillard violated Thomas’ Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful seizure and excessive force. We hold the domestic violence nature of a police investigation is not alone enough to establish reasonable suspicion a suspect is armed. We nonetheless hold Dillard is entitled to qualified immunity. Because Dillard is entitled to qualified immunity, we also reverse the partial summary judgment granted to Thomas on the issue of liability. See Bull v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964, 982 (9th Cir. 2010); Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 1996).