UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VINCENT KEITH BELL, No. 22-16580

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01245-SI v. WILLIAMS, #6040; CITY AND OPINION COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendants-Appellants, and FISHER, #1152; LEUNG, #2019; ANTHONY BRYANT; JOHNSON BUI; ROBERT DALY; KRISTIAN DEJESUS; DENNIS WALSH; ROBERT YEUNG,

Defendants.

VINCENT KEITH BELL, No. 22-16787

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01245-SI v. 2 BELL V. WILLIAMS

YVETTE WILLIAMS, Sgt. #6040; CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendants-Appellants, and FISHER, #1152; LEUNG, #2019; ANTHONY BRYANT; JOHNSON BUI; ROBERT DALY; KRISTIAN DEJESUS; DENNIS WALSH; ROBERT YEUNG,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 12, 2024 San Francisco, California

Filed July 18, 2024

Before: Carlos T. Bea, David F. Hamilton, * and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge David F. Hamilton * The Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation. BELL V. WILLIAMS 3

SUMMARY **

Civil Rights/Pretrial Detainees

The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the district court’s judgment and damages award for Vincent Bell following a jury trial in Bell’s action alleging that deputies used excessive force against him during a cell extraction and transfer while he was a pretrial detainee in the San Francisco Jail, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act. Bell alleged that Sergeant Yvette Williams did not provide Bell, whose right leg is amputated above the knee, a wheelchair or other mobility device during the procedure to accommodate Bell’s disability. Instead, she required Bell to hop on his one leg until it gave out. She then stood by as deputies picked up Bell and carried him by his arms and leg the rest of the way. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict on the merits of Bell’s Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim against Williams and his ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the City and County of San Francisco. Even assuming that Bell’s initial resistance to moving cells created a disturbance warranting the use of force, evidence supported Bell’s argument that he had resigned himself to moving cells and demonstrated complete compliance by the time Sergeant Williams began the cell extraction. Williams’ decision to commence the cell ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 BELL V. WILLIAMS

extraction without using a wheelchair or other assistive device resulted in Bell being carried by his arms and leg, a use of force that the jury could find unreasonable, especially given the alternatives contemplated by the jail’s policies. The jury could also find that reasonable accommodations existed to assist Bell in transiting between the two cells, even in light of the jail’s legitimate security interests, and the district court did not err in its jury instructions on Bell’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. The panel reversed the district court’s decision as to Bell’s Monell theory of liability for the constitutional violation because Bell did not present substantial evidence at trial showing that the City’s training was the product of deliberate indif