Latarsha Kelly v. Anthony Gaton ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 21-7138 September Term, 2022
FILED ON: JANUARY 27, 2023
LATARSHA KELLY,
APPELLANT
v.
ANTHONY GATON, OFFICER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
APPELLEES
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 1:19-cv-00023)
Before: MILLETT, WALKER and CHILDS, Circuit Judges.
JUDGMENT
The Court considered this appeal on the record from the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia and on the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. The Court has
afforded the issues full consideration and determined they do not warrant a published opinion. See
D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s November 15, 2021 order granting
defendants’ motion for summary judgment be AFFIRMED.
On June 28, 2018, Officer Gaton was en route to respond to an unrelated domestic
disturbance call when he observed Latarsha Kelly and her neighbor, Kiana Sims, arguing outside
of their apartment building. As Officer Gaton walked toward the women, he saw Kelly hit Sims
in the face with her hand. Officer Gaton immediately sprinted toward Kelly and tackled her, using
his 265 pounds of body weight to force Kelly to the ground, fracturing her pelvis in the process.
Officer Gaton did not give any verbal warning before he tackled Kelly, and Kelly was not aware
that law enforcement was present at the scene.
Kelly alleges that Officer Gaton used excessive force against her in effecting her arrest
when he tackled Kelly to the ground, without warning, fracturing her pelvis. Kelly filed suit in the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, asserting a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Officer Gaton in his individual capacity and a common law battery claim against Officer Gaton
and the District of Columbia (District). 1 The District removed the case to federal court, and that
court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to both claims.
The district court determined that Officer Gaton’s surprise tackle did not violate the Fourth
Amendment, and, alternatively, that Officer Gaton was entitled to qualified immunity for purposes
of section 1983 because his conduct did not violate clearly established law. Kelly v. Gaton, No.
CV-19-23, 2021 WL 5310566, at *6–7 (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2021). Likewise, the district court
determined that Officer Gaton was entitled to a qualified privilege because his conduct was both
objectively and subjectively reasonable under District of Columbia law, thereby defeating Kelly’s
common law battery claim. Id. at *9. Because Officer Gaton was not liable for the underlying
tort, the district court found that the District could not be liable under the doctrine of respondeat
superior. Id. On appeal, Kelly challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment. “We
review the grant of summary judgment de novo.” Johnson v. District of Columbia, 528 F.3d 969,
973 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
We need not decide whether Officer Gaton violated the Fourth Amendment. On the facts
of this case, Officer Gaton is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly
established law. Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct
did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known.” Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 183 (2011) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). In the Fourth Amendment context, the Supreme Court has repeatedly
emphasized that qualified immunity in excessive force cases must be analyzed with a high degree
of particularity, reversing lower court decisions that rely on factually distinguishable circuit
precedents. See, e.g., Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 142 S. Ct. 4, 7 (2021); City of Tahlequah,
Okla. v. Bond, 142 S. Ct. 9, 12 (2021); Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1153 (2018) (per curiam).
This case presents a unique set of circumstances in light of Kelly’s assault on Sims in front
of Officer Gaton immediately before he tackled Kelly. The excessive force precedent established
by our sister circuits and urged by Kelly is materially distinguishable and therefore is not
persuasive. See, e.g., Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95, 103 (4th Cir. 2015) (Officer who threw arrestee
to the ground and punched her repeatedly, breaking her rib, violated clearly established law
because arrestee was suspected of a nonviolent misdemeanor offense, was compliant, answered
questions, and did not attempt to flee); Casey v. City of Fed. Heights, 509 F.3d 1278, 1286 (10th
Cir. 2007) (Officers violated clearly established law when they tackled, beat, and tased a man,
without provocation or warning, because they suspected that he left the courthouse with his
casefile, a potential misdemeanor under Colorado law); Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d
463, 481 (9th Cir. 2007) (Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for “gang-tackling . . . a
relatively calm trespass suspect.”); Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi, 202 F.3d 730, 733–34 (5th
Cir. 2000) (Officers who tackled a non-fleeing suspect and broke his shoulder without reasonable
suspicion to detain or frisk him were not entitled to qualified immunity). While those cases
1
Kelly also asserted a common law negligence claim against Officer Gaton and the District, which
the district court dismissed. Kelly does not challenge that claim on appeal.
2
command that officers may not tackle nonviolent suspects of minor crimes who do not resist arrest
or flee, given Kelly’s physical assault on Sims, they do not place the alleged unlawfulness of
Officer Gaton’s conduct “beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011). In short,
we are not aware of any decisions issued by the Supreme Court, this Court, or any other circuit
court addressing a Fourth Amendment violation in similar circumstances.
“It is not enough that the rule is suggested by then-existing precedent. The precedent must
be clear enough that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the
plaintiff seeks to apply.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 590 (2018); see also White
v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017) (reiterating the “longstanding principle that clearly established
law should not be defined at a high level of generality” (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted)). And this is not a “rare” or “obvious” case where “the unlawfulness of the officer’s
conduct is sufficiently clear even though existing precedent does not address similar
circumstances.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 590; see also Hope v. Peltzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002)
(officers who handcuffed petitioner to a hitching post for seven hours, deprived him of bathroom
breaks, and subjected him to a substantial risk of physical harm, violated clearly established law
even though court decisions had yet to address “materially similar” conduct).
Finally, Kelly’s challenge to the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to her
common law battery claim also fails. Although this Court questioned the similarity of the tests for
federal qualified immunity and state-law qualified privilege, counsel conceded that Kelly did not
address any alternative theory in her briefs. Oral Arg. Tr. 11:16-18; see also Appellant’s Br. 28
(asserting that federal qualified immunity is “essentially the equivalent” to state-law qualified
privilege). And, at oral argument, counsel confirmed that Kelly has not departed from her view
that the two tests are indistinguishable on the facts of this case. 2 Oral Arg. Tr. 8:16–9:21.
Therefore, any argument that Kelly’s common law battery claim is independent of the qualified
immunity inquiry is waived.
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion for
summary judgment is affirmed.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is
directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely
petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R.
41.
Per Curiam
2
Because the parties do not raise the issue, we need not decide whether Officer Gaton is entitled
to a qualified privilege under District law. However, we note as a general matter that counsel’s
assertions that the federal qualified immunity and state-law qualified privilege tests are “99.9 %”
identical in the excessive force context appear to be incorrect. Oral Arg. Tr. 8:22-9:21; District of
Columbia v. Chinn, 839 A.2d 701, 707 (D.C. 2003) (“[W]here the excessive force is the product
of a battery, an unwanted touching inherent in any arrest, which escalates in an unbroken manner
into excessive force, the cause of action is a battery alone, with the privilege having ended at the
point where excessive force began.”).
3
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Michael C. McGrail
Deputy Clerk
4