Robles v. Parham

Ronnie Parham was driving to his grandparents’ house in West Covina, California, when police officers signaled for him to pull over, based on his lack of a front license plate and tinted windows.  He slowed his car, driving for less than a minute before stopping in front of his grandparents’ house.  He then complied with the officers’ instructions and exited the car, raising his empty hands in the air.  Even though he was compliant and unarmed, the officers then brutally beat him and then arrested him. The officers did not allow him to get medical treatment and falsely claimed that he had resisted arrest.  Mr. Parham later sued the officers under section 1983 for violating his constitutional rights, including claims for excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and deliberate indifference to his medical needs. After the close of discovery, the officers sought summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, which the district court denied in a decision the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

The officers then sought review in the Supreme Court, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity on all of the claims against them because they had probable cause to believe Mr. Parham had tried to evade arrest and because one judge of the 3-judge appellate panel had partially dissented on one of the claims.  Serving as co-counsel for Mr. Parham in the Supreme Court, we filed a brief in opposition to the petition. The brief explained that the court of appeals correctly declined to resolve factual disputes in the officers’ favor and applied the correct legal standards in evaluating whether, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Mr. Parham, the officers had violated clearly established law. The brief also explained that the petition’s proposal that officers are entitled to qualified immunity whenever a single judge dissents is inconsistent with historical practice and the broader scheme of appellate review.