DANIEL RIVAS-VILLEGAS v. RAMON CORTESLUNA

Petitioner Daniel Rivas-Villegas, a police officer in Union

City, California, responded to a 911 call reporting that a

woman and her two children were barricaded in a room for

fear that respondent Ramon Cortesluna, the woman's boy-

friend, was going to hurt them. After confirming that the

family had no way of escaping the house, Rivas-Villegas

and the other officers present commanded Cortesluna out-

side and onto the ground. Officers saw a knife in Cor-

tesluna's left pocket. While Rivas-Villegas and another of-

ficer were in the process of removing the knife and

handcuffing Cortesluna, Rivas-Villegas briefly placed his

knee on the left side of Cortesluna's back. Cortesluna later

sued under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging, as

relevant, that Rivas-Villegas used excessive force. At issue

here is whether Rivas-Villegas is entitled to qualified im-

munity because he did not violate clearly established law.



* * *



See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1539_09m1.pdf

The Court of Appeals held that “Rivas-Villegas is not en-

titled to qualified immunity because existing precedent put

him on notice that his conduct constituted excessive force.”

Id., at 654. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Ap-

peals relied solely on LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204

F. 3d 947 (CA9 2000). The court acknowledged that “the

officers here responded to a more volatile situation than did

the officers in LaLonde.” 979 F. 3d, at 654. Nevertheless,

it reasoned: “Both LaLonde and this case involve suspects

who were lying face-down on the ground and were not re-

sisting either physically or verbally, on whose back the de-

fendant officer leaned with a knee, causing allegedly signif-

icant injury.” Ibid.