UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL ANDREWS, No. 20-17053 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:18-cv-01625- JCM-BNW CITY OF HENDERSON; PHILLIP WATFORD; KARL LIPPISCH, Defendants-Appellants, OPINION

and HENDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOSEPH W. EBERT; R. ADAMS; K. LAPEER; K. LIPPISCH, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 9, 2021 San Francisco, California

Filed May 23, 2022 2 ANDREWS V. CITY OF HENDERSON

Before: Eugene E. Siler, * Morgan Christen, and Danielle J. Forrest, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Forrest

SUMMARY **

Civil Rights

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial, on summary judgment, of qualified immunity to two police detectives in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging defendants used excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, when, without warning, they tackled plaintiff to the ground, fracturing his hip.

Defendants believed they had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for a series of armed robberies and forcibly tackled him as he was leaving a Nevada state courthouse. The panel held that the use of force was substantial. Although plaintiff was suspected of a serious crime, viewing the evidence in his favor, the detectives knew that he was not armed and was not posing an immediate threat to anyone as he exited the courthouse. Under these circumstances, a reasonable jury could find that the degree of force used against plaintiff violated his Fourth Amendment right against excessive force, and the detectives were not entitled to summary

* The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ANDREWS V. CITY OF HENDERSON 3 judgment on the question of whether they committed a constitutional violation.

The panel further held that Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) clearly established— and thus put a prudent officer on notice—that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment by tackling and piling on top of a relatively calm, non-resisting suspect who posed little threat of safety without any prior warning and without attempting a less violent means of effecting an arrest.

The panel held that it lacked pendent appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s denial of the City of Henderson’s separate motion for summary judgment because the issue of the City’s § 1983 municipal liability was not inextricably intertwined with the detectives’ claim of qualified immunity.

COUNSEL Michael J. Oh (argued), Senior Assistant City Attorney; Nicholas G. Vaskov, City Attorney; Office of the City Attorney, Henderson, Nevada; for Defendants-Appellants. Peter Goldstein (argued), Peter Goldstein Law Corp., Las Vegas, Nevada, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 4 ANDREWS V. CITY OF HENDERSON

OPINION FORREST, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Daniel Andrews exited a Nevada state courthouse and, without warning, two plainclothes detectives tackled him to the ground, fracturing his hip. Andrews was not resisting, fleeing, or committing a crime. Moreover, because he had just passed through the courthouse’s security checkpoint, including a metal detector and x-ray scanner, the detectives knew that Andrews was unarmed. Andrews s