Week of October 26, 2021

Officers responding to domestic violence call entitled to qualified immunity on ground they did not violate any clearly established law when they shot and killed suspect who raised hammer behind his head and took a stance as if he was about to throw hammer or charge at officers; Court does not reach issue of whether officers who recklessly create a situation that requires deadly force would violate Fourth Amendment, distinguishing cases that stand for that proposition from this case on the facts.

Officer responding to domestic violence call entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force claim, where officer put his knee on plaintiff’s back as he lay on the ground for no more than 8 seconds and only on the side of his back near a knife in his pocket that officers were in the process of retrieving; Court distinguishes Lalonde v. Co. of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2000), where officer deliberately dug his knee into suspect’s back when he had no weapon and had made no threats, causing long-term, if not permanent back injury.

Adherents of Falun Gong maintained tables on sidewalk to pass out flyers and display posters protesting Chinese government’s treatment of Falun Gong and sued defendants who allegedly harassed, intimidated, and interfered with their activities at the tables; court holds that under the FACEA a “place of worship” is “anywhere that religious adherents collectively recognize or religious leadership designates as a space primarily to gather for or hold religious worship activities,” and the sidewalk tables did not qualify as such, thus there was no claim under the FACEA).

Plaintiff had no cause of action under § 1983 against officer who allegedly lied during state administrative proceeding concerning suspension of plaintiff’s driver’s license; state provided sufficient postdeprivation process to foreclose procedural due process claim; officer’s conduct was unauthorized under Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984).