{"id":1558,"date":"2021-10-25T03:52:15","date_gmt":"2021-10-25T03:52:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?page_id=1558"},"modified":"2022-05-05T20:49:50","modified_gmt":"2022-05-05T20:49:50","slug":"caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\/","title":{"rendered":"CACI 3020 Excessive Use of Force\u2014Unreasonable Arrest or Other Seizure\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kuv36ag0-7c085207e8fc8ba958c9049613ec8d8f\">\n#top .av-special-heading.av-kuv36ag0-7c085207e8fc8ba958c9049613ec8d8f{\npadding-bottom:10px;\n}\nbody .av-special-heading.av-kuv36ag0-7c085207e8fc8ba958c9049613ec8d8f .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{\nfont-size:25px;\n}\n.av-special-heading.av-kuv36ag0-7c085207e8fc8ba958c9049613ec8d8f .av-subheading{\nfont-size:15px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='av-special-heading av-kuv36ag0-7c085207e8fc8ba958c9049613ec8d8f av-special-heading-h1 blockquote modern-quote  avia-builder-el-0  el_before_av_hr  avia-builder-el-first '><h1 class='av-special-heading-tag '  itemprop=\"headline\"  >CACI 3020 Excessive Use of Force\u2014Unreasonable Arrest or Other Seizure\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983)<\/h1><div class='av-subheading av-subheading_below'><p>California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"special-heading-border\"><div class=\"special-heading-inner-border\"><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-1  el_after_av_heading  el_before_avia_sc_search '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7\">\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchform_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nborder-color:#edae44;\nbackground-color:#edae44;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #s.av-input-field{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #searchsubmit{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchsubmit_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n.ajax_search_response.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7{\npadding:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nmargin:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='avia_search_element av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7  avia-builder-el-2  el_after_av_hr  el_before_av_textblock '><search><form action='https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/' id='searchform_element' method='get' class='' data-element_id='av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7' ><div class='av_searchform_wrapper'><input type='search' value='' id='s' name='s' placeholder='Search CACI' aria-label='Search CACI' class='av-input-field ' required \/><div class='av_searchsubmit_wrapper '><input type='submit' value='Find' id='searchsubmit' class='button ' title='View results on search page' aria-label='View results on search page' \/><\/div><input type='hidden' name='numberposts' value='8' \/><input type='hidden' name='post_type' value='page' \/><input type='hidden' name='results_hide_fields' value='post_titles,meta,image' \/><\/div><\/form><\/search><\/div>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-av_textblock-e878f05c31dff72941bf1e49a00d9ff5 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/\">CACI Jury Instructions Index<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/caci-fillable-forms.crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">App: CACI Jury Instructions Fillable Forms Word Format<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-4  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kuv37wei-4bcaa7b61ed550b7e8d5ebd4883767ae\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-kuv37wei-4bcaa7b61ed550b7e8d5ebd4883767ae .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:20px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-kuv37wei-4bcaa7b61ed550b7e8d5ebd4883767ae '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><h2 class=\"SS_Banner\">3020\u00a0Excessive Use of Force\u2014Unreasonable Arrest or Other Seizure\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983)<\/h2>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] claims that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] used excessive force in [arresting\/detaining] [him\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] in violation of the\u00a0Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. To establish this claim, [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] must prove all of the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">1.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] used force in [arresting\/detaining] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">2.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That the force used by [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was excessive;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">3.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was acting or purporting to act in the performance of [his\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] official duties;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">4.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was harmed; and<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">5.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s use of excessive force was a substantial factor in causing [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s harm.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">Under the\u00a0Fourth Amendment, force is excessive if it is not reasonably necessary under the circumstances. In deciding whether force is reasonably necessary or excessive, you should determine, based on all of the facts and circumstances, what force a reasonable law enforcement officer on the scene would have used under the same or similar circumstances. You should consider the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">(a)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">Whether [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] reasonably appeared to pose an immediate threat to the safety of [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] or others;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">(b)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">The seriousness of the crime at issue [or other circumstances known to [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] at the time force was applied];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">(c)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">Whether [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was actively [resisting [arrest\/detention]\/ [or] attempting to avoid [arrest\/detention] by flight];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">(d)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">The amount of time [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] had to determine the type and amount of force that reasonably appeared necessary, and any changing circumstances during that time period[; and\/.]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">(e)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">The type and amount of force used[; and\/.]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">(f)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Specify other factors particular to the case<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">].] <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\"><\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_1\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">New September 2003; Revised June 2012; Renumbered from\u00a0CACI No. 3001\u00a0December 2012; Revised June 2015, June 2016, May 2020, November 2020 <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">Crowdsource Lawyers<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\">https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci<\/a><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\"><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Directions for Use<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_2\">\n<p>The\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u2019s\u00a0\u201cobjective reasonableness\u201d standard applies to all claims of excessive force against law enforcement officers in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure brought under Title\u00a042 United States Code section 1983, whether deadly or not. (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Scott v. Harris<\/span>\u00a0(2007) 550 U.S. 372, 381\u2013385 [127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686].)<\/p>\n<p>The \u201cofficial duties\u201d referred to in element 3 must be duties created by a state, county, or municipal law, ordinance, or regulation. This aspect of color of law most likely will not be an issue for the jury, so it has been omitted to shorten the wording of element 3.<\/p>\n<p>Factors (a), (b), and (c) are often referred to as the \u201c<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham<\/span>\u00a0factors.\u201d (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham v. Connor<\/span>\u00a0(1989) 490 U.S. 386, 396 [109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443].) The\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham<\/span>\u00a0factors are not exclusive. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Glenn v. Wash. County<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2011) 673 F.3d 864, 872.) Other relevant factors include the availability of less intrusive alternatives to the force employed, whether proper warnings were given, and whether it should have been apparent to officers that the person they used force against was emotionally disturbed. (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Id.<\/span>) These and other additional factors may be added if appropriate to the facts of the case.<\/p>\n<p>Claims of excessive force brought by pretrial detainees are governed by the\u00a0Fourteenth Amendment\u2019s Due Process Clause\u00a0and are also analyzed under an objective reasonableness standard. (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Kingsley v. Hendrickson<\/span>\u00a0(2015) 576 U.S. 389 [135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473, 192 L.Ed.2d 416].) Modify the instruction for use in a case brought by a pretrial detainee involving the use of excessive force after arrest, but before conviction. For an instruction on an excessive force claim brought by a convicted prisoner, see\u00a0CACI No. 3042,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Violation of Prisoner\u2019s Federal Civil Rights\u2014Eighth Amendment\u2014Excessive Force<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The legality or illegality of the use of deadly force under state law is not relevant to the constitutional question. (Cf.\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">People v. McKay<\/span>\u00a0(2002) 27 Cal.4th 601, 610 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 236, 41 P.3d 59]\u00a0[\u201c[T]he [United States Supreme Court] has repeatedly emphasized that the\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u00a0inquiry does not depend on whether the challenged police conduct was authorized by state law\u201d]; see also\u00a0Pen. Code, \u00a7\u2009835a.)<\/p>\n<p>For instructions for use in a negligence claim under California common law based on the same event and facts, see\u00a0CACI No. 440,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Negligent Use of Nondeadly Force by Law Enforcement Officer in Arrest or Other Seizure\u2014Essential Factual Elements<\/span>, and\u00a0CACI No. 441,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Negligent Use of Deadly Force by Peace Officer\u2014Essential Factual Elements<\/span>. For an instruction for use alleging excessive force as a battery, see CACI No. 1305,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Battery by Peace Officer\u2014Essential Factual Elements<\/span>. <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Sources and Authority<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIn addressing an excessive force claim brought under \u00a7\u20091983, analysis begins by identifying the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force. In most instances, that will be either the\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u2019s\u00a0prohibition against unreasonable seizures of the person, or the\u00a0Eighth Amendment\u2019s\u00a0ban on cruel and unusual punishments, which are the two primary sources of constitutional protection against physically abusive governmental conduct.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham, supra,<\/span>\u00a0490 U.S. at p. 395, internal citations and footnote omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhere, as here, the excessive force claim arises in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is most properly characterized as one invoking the protections of the\u00a0Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right \u2018to be secure in their persons \u2026 against unreasonable \u2026 seizures\u2019 of the person.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham, supra,<\/span>\u00a0490 U.S. at p. 394.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIn deciding whether the force deliberately used is, constitutionally speaking, \u2018excessive,\u2019 should courts use an objective standard only, or instead a subjective standard that takes into account a defendant\u2019s state of mind? It is with respect to\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">this<\/span>\u00a0question that we hold that courts must use an objective standard.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Kingsley, supra,<\/span>\u00a0576 U.S. at p. 396, original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[A]ll claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force\u2014deadly or not\u2014in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other \u2018seizure\u2019 of a free citizen should be analyzed under the\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u00a0and its \u2018reasonableness\u2019 standard, rather than under a \u2018substantive due process\u2019 approach.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham, supra,<\/span>\u00a0490 U.S. at p. 395.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018The intrusiveness of a seizure by means of deadly force is unmatched.\u2019 \u2018The use of deadly force implicates the highest level of\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u00a0interests both because the suspect has a \u201cfundamental interest in his own life\u201d and because such force \u201cfrustrates the interest of the individual, and of society, in judicial determination of guilt and punishment.\u201d\u2009\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Vos v. City of Newport Beach<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2018) 892 F.3d 1024, 1031.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe \u2018reasonableness\u2019 of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20\/20 vision of hindsight.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham, supra,<\/span>\u00a0490 U.S. at p. 396.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cBecause \u2018[t]he test of reasonableness under the\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u00a0is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application,\u2019 \u2026 its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham, supra,<\/span>\u00a0490 U.S. at p. 396, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe most important of these [factors from\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham<\/span>, above] is whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officers or others, as measured objectively under the circumstances.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Mendoza v. City of West Covina<\/span>\u00a0(2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 702, 712 [141 Cal.Rptr.3d 553].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[The\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham<\/span>] factors, however, are not exclusive. We \u2018examine the totality of the circumstances and consider \u201cwhatever specific factors may be appropriate in a particular case, whether or not listed in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham<\/span>.\u201d\u2009\u2019 Other relevant factors include the availability of less intrusive alternatives to the force employed, whether proper warnings were given and whether it should have been apparent to officers that the person they used force against was emotionally disturbed.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Glenn, supra,<\/span>\u00a0673 F.3d at p. 872, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWith respect to the possibility of less intrusive force, officers need not employ the least intrusive means available[,] so long as they act within a range of reasonable conduct.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2017) 871 F.3d 998, 1006.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAlthough officers are not required to use the least intrusive degree of force available, \u2018the availability of alternative methods of capturing or subduing a suspect may be a factor to consider.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Vos, supra,<\/span>\u00a0892 F.3d at p. 1033, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cCourts \u2018also consider, under the totality of the circumstances, the quantum of force used to arrest the plaintiff, the availability of alternative methods of capturing or detaining the suspect, and the plaintiff\u2019s mental and emotional state.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Brooks v. Clark County<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2016) 828 F.3d 910, 920.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cBecause the reasonableness standard \u2018nearly always requires a jury to sift through disputed factual contentions, and to draw inferences therefrom, we have held on many occasions that summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law in excessive force cases should be granted sparingly.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Torres v. City of Madera<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2011) 648 F.3d 1119, 1125.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cJustice Stevens incorrectly declares [the \u2018objective reasonableness\u2019 standard under\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham<\/span>] to be \u2018a question of fact best reserved for a jury,\u2019 and complains we are \u2018usurp[ing] the jury\u2019s factfinding function.\u2019 At the summary judgment stage, however, once we have determined the relevant set of facts and drawn all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">to the extent supportable by the record<\/span>, the reasonableness of [defendant]\u2019s actions\u2014or, in Justice Stevens\u2019 parlance, \u2018[w]hether [respondent\u2019s] actions have risen to a level warranting deadly force,\u2019 is a pure question of law.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Scott, supra,\u00a0<\/span>550 U.S. at p. 381, fn. 8, original italics, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cBecause there are no genuine issues of material fact and \u2018the relevant set of facts\u2019 has been determined, the reasonableness of the use of force is \u2018a pure question of law.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Lowry v. City of San Diego<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1248, 1256\u00a0(en banc).)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIn assessing the objective reasonableness of a particular use of force, we consider: (1) \u2018the severity of the intrusion on the individual\u2019s\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u00a0rights by evaluating the type and amount of force inflicted,\u2019 (2) \u2018the government\u2019s interest in the use of force,\u2019 and (3) the balance between \u2018the gravity of the intrusion on the individual\u2019 and \u2018the government\u2019s need for that intrusion.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Lowry, supra,<\/span>\u00a0858 F.3d at p. 1256.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cTo be sure, the reasonableness inquiry in the context of excessive force balances \u2018intrusion[s] on the individual\u2019s\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u00a0interests\u2019 against the government\u2019s interests. But in weighing the evidence in favor of the officers, rather than the [plaintiffs], the district court unfairly tipped the reasonableness inquiry in the officers\u2019 favor.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep\u2019t<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2014) 756 F.3d 1154, 1167, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe district court found that [plaintiff] stated a claim for excessive use of force, but that governmental interests in officer safety, investigating a possible crime, and controlling an interaction with a potential domestic abuser outweighed the intrusion upon [plaintiff]\u2019s rights. In reaching this conclusion, the court improperly \u2018weigh[ed] conflicting evidence with respect to \u2026 disputed material fact[s].\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Bonivert v. City of Clarkston<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2018) 883 F.3d 865, 880.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u2019s\u00a0\u2018reasonableness\u2019 standard is not the same as the standard of \u2018reasonable care\u2019 under tort law, and negligent acts do not incur constitutional liability.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Hayes v. County of San Diego<\/span>\u00a057 Cal.4th 622, 639 [160 Cal.Rptr.3d 684, 305 P.3d 252].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[S]tate negligence law, which considers the totality of the circumstances surrounding any use of deadly force, is broader than federal\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u00a0law, which tends to focus more narrowly on the moment when deadly force is used.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Hayes, supra,<\/span>\u00a057 Cal.4th at p. 639, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhile a\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u00a0violation cannot be established \u2018based merely on bad tactics that result in a deadly confrontation that could have been avoided,\u2019 the events leading up to the shooting, including the officers tactics, are encompassed in the facts and circumstances for the reasonableness analysis.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Vos, supra,<\/span>\u00a0892 F.3d at p. 1034, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWe are cognizant of the Supreme Court\u2019s command to evaluate an officer\u2019s actions \u2018from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20\/20 vision of hindsight.\u2019 We also recognize the reality that \u2018police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments\u2014in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving\u2014about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.\u2019 This does not mean, however, that a\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u00a0violation will be found only in those rare instances where an officer and his attorney are unable to find a sufficient number of compelling adjectives to describe the victim\u2019s conduct. Nor does it mean that we can base our analysis on what officers actually felt or believed during an incident. Rather, we must ask if the officers\u2019 conduct is \u2018\u2009\u201cobjectively reasonable\u201d in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them\u2019 without regard for an officer\u2019s subjective intentions.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Bryan v. MacPherson<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2010) 630 F.3d 805, 831, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cDeadly force is permissible only \u2018if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">A. K. H. v. City of Tustin<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2016) 837 F.3d 1005, 1011.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[A]n officer may not use deadly force to apprehend a suspect where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer or others. On the other hand, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape using deadly force \u2018[w]here the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wilkinson v. Torres<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2010) 610 F.3d 546, 550, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIt is clearly established law that shooting a fleeing suspect in the back violates the suspect\u2019s\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u00a0rights. \u2018Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.\u2009\u2026 A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Foster v. City of Indio<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2018) 908 F.3d 1204, 1211.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018[I]f police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.\u2019 But terminating a threat doesn\u2019t necessarily mean terminating the suspect. If the suspect is on the ground and appears wounded, he may no longer pose a threat; a reasonable officer would reassess the situation rather than continue shooting.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Zion v. County of Orange<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2017) 874 F.3d 1072, 1076, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cResistance, or the reasonable perception of resistance, does not entitle police officers to use any amount of force to restrain a suspect. Rather, police officers who confront actual (or perceived) resistance are only permitted to use an amount of force that is reasonable to overcome that resistance.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Barnard v. Theobald<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2013) 721 F.3d 1069, 1076, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he fact that the \u2018suspect was armed with a deadly weapon\u2019 does\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">not<\/span>\u00a0render the officers\u2019 response per se reasonable under the\u00a0Fourth Amendment. [\u00b6] This is not to say that the\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u00a0always requires officers to delay their fire until a suspect turns his weapon on them. If the person is armed\u2014or reasonably suspected of being armed\u2014a furtive movement, harrowing gesture, or serious verbal threat might create an immediate threat.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">George v. Morris<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2013) 724 F.3d 1191, 1200, original italics, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018[A] simple statement by an officer that he fears for his safety or the safety of others is not enough; there must be objective factors to justify such a concern.\u2019 Here, whether objective factors supported [defendant]\u2019s supposed subjective fear is not a question that can be answered as a matter of law based upon the limited evidence in the record, especially given that on summary judgment that evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to [plaintiff], the non-moving party. Rather, whether [defendant]\u2019s claim that he feared a broccoli-based assault is credible and reasonable presents a genuine question of material fact that must be resolved not by a court ruling on a motion for summary judgment but by a jury in its capacity as the trier of fact.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Young v. County of Los Angeles<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2011) 655 F.3d 1156, 1163\u20131164.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAn officer\u2019s evil intentions will not make a\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u00a0violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer\u2019s good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Fetters v. County of Los Angeles<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 825, 838 [196 Cal.Rptr.3d 848].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhere \u2026 \u2018an officer\u2019s particular use of force is based on a mistake of fact, we ask whether a reasonable officer would have or\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">should<\/span>\u00a0have accurately perceived that fact.\u2019 \u2018[W]hether the mistake was an\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">honest<\/span>\u00a0one is not the concern, only whether it was a\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">reasonable<\/span>\u00a0one.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Nehad v. Browder<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2019) 929 F.3d 1125, 1133, original italics, internal citation and footnote omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAlthough\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham<\/span>\u00a0does not specifically identify as a relevant factor whether the suspect poses a threat to\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">himself<\/span>, we assume that the officers could have used some reasonable level of force to try to prevent [decedent] from taking a suicidal act. But we are aware of no published cases holding it reasonable to use a\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">significant<\/span>\u00a0amount of force to try to stop someone from attempting suicide. Indeed, it would be odd to permit officers to use force capable of causing serious injury or death in an effort to prevent the possibility that an individual might attempt to harm only himself. We do not rule out that in some circumstances some force might be warranted to prevent suicide, but in cases like this one the \u2018solution\u2019 could be worse than the problem.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Glenn, supra,<\/span>\u00a0673 F.3d at p. 872.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThis Court has \u2018refused to create two tracks of excessive force analysis, one for the mentally ill and one for serious criminals.\u2019 The Court has, however, \u2018found that even when an emotionally disturbed individual is acting out and inviting officers to use deadly force to subdue him, the governmental interest in using such force is diminished by the fact that the officers are confronted \u2026 with a mentally ill individual.\u2019 A reasonable jury could conclude, based upon the information available to [defendant officer] at the time, that there were sufficient indications of mental illness to diminish the governmental interest in using deadly force.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Hughes v. Kisela<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2016) 841 F.3d 1081, 1086.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhether an officer warned a suspect that failure to comply with the officer\u2019s commands would result in the use of force is another relevant factor in an excessive force analysis.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Nehad, supra,<\/span>\u00a0929 F.3d at p. 1137.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cBy contrast, if the officer warned the offender that he would employ force, but the suspect refused to comply, the government has an increased interest in the use of force.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Marquez v. City of Phoenix<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2012) 693 F.3d 1167, 1175, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[P]reshooting conduct is included in the totality of circumstances surrounding an officer\u2019s use of deadly force, and therefore the officer\u2019s duty to act reasonably when using deadly force extends to preshooting conduct. But in a case like this one, where the preshooting conduct did not cause the plaintiff any injury independent of the injury resulting from the shooting, the reasonableness of the officers\u2019 preshooting conduct should not be considered in isolation. Rather, it should be considered in relation to the question whether the officers\u2019 ultimate use of deadly force was reasonable.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Hayes, supra,<\/span>\u00a057 Cal.4th at p. 632, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cSometimes, however, officers themselves may \u2018unnecessarily creat[e] [their] own sense of urgency.\u2019 Reasonable triers of fact can, taking the totality of the circumstances into account, conclude that an officer\u2019s poor judgment or lack of preparedness caused him or her to act unreasonably, \u2018with undue haste.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Nehad, supra,<\/span>\u00a0929 F.3d at p. 1135, internal citation and footnote omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cA person is seized by the police and thus entitled to challenge the government\u2019s action under the\u00a0Fourth Amendment\u00a0when the officer by means of physical force or show of authority terminates or restrains his freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Nelson v. City of Davis<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2012) 685 F.3d 867, 875.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase \u2018under \u201ccolor\u201d of law\u2019 to mean \u2018under \u201cpretense\u201d of law.\u2019 A police officer\u2019s actions are under pretense of law only if they are \u2018in some way \u201crelated to the performance of his official duties.\u201d\u2009\u2019 By contrast, an officer who is \u2018\u2009\u201cpursuing his own goals and is not in any way subject to control by [his public employer],\u201d\u2009\u2019 does not act under color of law, unless he \u2018purports or pretends\u2019 to do so. Officers who engage in confrontations for personal reasons unrelated to law enforcement, and do not \u2018purport[] or pretend[]\u2019 to be officers, do not act under color of law.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Huffman v. County of Los Angeles<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 1998) 147 F.3d 1054, 1058, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWe hold that, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a \u00a7\u20091983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court\u2019s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under \u00a7\u20091983. Thus, when a state prisoner seeks damages in a \u00a7\u20091983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. But if the district court determines that the plaintiff\u2019s action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to the suit.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Heck v. Humphrey<\/span>\u00a0(1994) 512 U.S. 477, 486\u2013487 [114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383], footnotes and internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Heck<\/span>\u00a0requires the reviewing court to answer three questions: (1) Was there an underlying conviction or sentence relating to the section 1983 claim? (2) Would a \u2018judgment in favor of the plaintiff [in the section 1983 action] \u201cnecessarily imply\u201d \u2026 the invalidity of the prior conviction or sentence?\u2019 (3) \u2018If so, was the prior conviction or sentence already invalidated or otherwise favorably terminated?\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Fetters, supra<\/span>, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 834.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Heck<\/span>\u00a0inquiry does not require a court to consider whether the section 1983 claim would establish beyond all doubt the invalidity of the criminal outcome; rather, a court need only \u2018consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">imply<\/span>\u00a0the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Fetters, supra<\/span>, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 841, original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[A] dismissal under section 1203.4 does not invalidate a conviction for purposes of removing the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Heck<\/span>\u00a0bar preventing a plaintiff from bringing a civil action.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Baranchik v. Fizulich<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1210, 1224 [217 Cal.Rptr.3d 423].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[Plaintiff]\u2019s section 1983 claim\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">is<\/span>\u00a0barred to the extent it alleges that [the arresting officer] lacked justification to arrest him or to respond with reasonable force to his resistance. The use of deadly force in this situation, though, requires a separate analysis. \u2018For example, a defendant might resist a lawful arrest, to which the arresting officers might respond with excessive force to subdue him. The subsequent use of excessive force would not negate the lawfulness of the initial arrest attempt, or negate the unlawfulness of the criminal defendant\u2019s attempt to resist it. Though occurring in one continuous chain of events, two isolated factual contexts would exist, the first giving rise to criminal liability on the part of the criminal defendant, and the second giving rise to civil liability on the part of the arresting officer.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Yount v. City of Sacramento<\/span>\u00a0(2008) 43 Cal.4th 885, 899 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 787, 183 P.3d 471], original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cPlaintiffs contend that the use of force is unlawful because the arrest itself is unlawful. But that is not so. We have expressly held that claims for false arrest and excessive force are analytically distinct.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Sharp v. County of Orange<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2017) 871 F.3d 901, 916.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he district court effectively required the jury to presume that the arrest\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">was<\/span>\u00a0constitutionally lawful, and so not to consider facts concerning the basis for the arrest. Doing so removed critical factual questions that were within the jury\u2019s province to decide. For instance, by taking from the jury the question whether [officer]\u2019s arrest of [plaintiff] for resisting or obstructing a police officer was lawful, the district judge implied simultaneously that [plaintiff] was in fact resisting or failing to obey the police officer\u2019s lawful instructions. Presuming such resistance could certainly have influenced the jury\u2019s assessment of \u2018the need for force,\u2019 as well as its consideration of the other\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Graham<\/span>\u00a0factors, including \u2018whether [the suspect] is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. By erroneously granting judgment as a matter of law on [plaintiff]\u2019s unlawful arrest claim, the district court impermissibly truncated the jury\u2019s consideration of [plaintiff]\u2019s excessive force claim.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Velazquez v. City of Long Beach<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2015) 793 F.3d 1010, 1027, original italics.) <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"SS_Heading\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\"><span class=\"SS_ib\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_ib\">Secondary Sources<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n<div>8 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Constitutional Law, \u00a7\u00a7\u2009981, 985<\/div>\n<div>Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch.7-G,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Unruh Civil Rights Act<\/span>, \u00b6\u20097:1526 et seq. (The Rutter Group)<\/div>\n<div>3 Civil Rights Actions, Ch. 10,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Deprivation of Rights Under Color of State Law\u2014Law Enforcement and Prosecution<\/span>, \u00b6\u00b6\u200910.00\u201310.03 (Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>11\u00a0California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 113,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Civil Rights: The Post-Civil War Civil Rights Statutes<\/span>, \u00a7\u2009113.14\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-7lm7om-1fdae63b607a18b4fd0ce4cbe58914d3 hr-default  avia-builder-el-6  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-675xvq-8086d41a0d7a39d1e8aaf5f71be128f3\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-675xvq-8086d41a0d7a39d1e8aaf5f71be128f3 .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:22px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-675xvq-8086d41a0d7a39d1e8aaf5f71be128f3 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">CrowdSourceLawyers.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1558","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>CACI 3020 Excessive Use of Force\u2014Unreasonable Arrest or Other Seizure\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-\u00a7-1983\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CACI 3020 Excessive Use of Force\u2014Unreasonable Arrest or Other Seizure\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-\u00a7-1983\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-05-05T20:49:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\\\/\",\"name\":\"CACI 3020 Excessive Use of Force\u2014Unreasonable Arrest or Other Seizure\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-25T03:52:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-05T20:49:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/home\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CACI 3020 Excessive Use of Force\u2014Unreasonable Arrest or Other Seizure\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"name\":\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"description\":\"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"width\":453,\"height\":208,\"caption\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CACI 3020 Excessive Use of Force\u2014Unreasonable Arrest or Other Seizure\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-\u00a7-1983\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CACI 3020 Excessive Use of Force\u2014Unreasonable Arrest or Other Seizure\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","og_url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-\u00a7-1983\/","og_site_name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","article_modified_time":"2022-05-05T20:49:50+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\/","name":"CACI 3020 Excessive Use of Force\u2014Unreasonable Arrest or Other Seizure\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-10-25T03:52:15+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-05T20:49:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3020-excessive-use-of-force-unreasonable-arrest-or-other-seizure-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/home\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CACI 3020 Excessive Use of Force\u2014Unreasonable Arrest or Other Seizure\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","description":"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization","name":"CrowdSource Lawyers","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","width":453,"height":208,"caption":"CrowdSource Lawyers"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1558","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1558"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1558\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4048,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1558\/revisions\/4048"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}