Fair v. Turley

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 24, 2025
• Docket: 24-1846
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PARNELL JAY FAIR, No. 24-1846 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:20-cv-01841-JCM-BNW v. MEMORANDUM* LUKAS TURLEY; ALEXANDER RYNDAK,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Argued and Submitted April 1, 2025 Phoenix, Arizona

Before: W. FLETCHER, FISHER**, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Parnell Fair appeals the District Court’s order granting summary judgment

based on qualified immunity to officer defendants Lukas Turley and Alexander

Ryndak for claims of denial of post-arrest medical care and excessive force.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, sitting by designation. Because we conclude there was no constitutional violation with regard to either

claim under the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we affirm.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s

grant of summary judgment, as well as its conclusions on qualified immunity, de

novo. Isayeva v. Sacramento Sheriff’s Dep’t, 872 F.3d 938, 946 (9th Cir. 2017);

Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2014).

1. Post-Arrest Medical Care

Fair argues that Turley and Ryndak’s conduct violated his Fourth

Amendment right to “objectively reasonable post-arrest care.” Tatum v. City &

Cnty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2006). For post-arrest care

claims, a police officer acts reasonably “by either promptly summoning the

necessary medical help or by taking the injured detainee to a hospital.” Id. (quoting

Maddox v. City of Los Angeles, 792 F.2d 1408, 1415 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The record supplemented by body camera footage demonstrates that the

officers’ conduct was reasonable. The officers relied on the expertise of medic

Miguel Austad, who arrived on the scene promptly after Fair was tackled and

handcuffed by Turley. Immediately, Turley informed Austad that Fair was

complaining of a broken leg, but Austad responded Fair was “fine” based on his

visual assessment. Austad then left the scene momentarily. When Ryndak arrived a

few minutes later, he radioed for medical personnel to assess the situation, unaware

2 24-1846 that Austad had already assessed Fair. However, his decision to cancel that request

was reasonable when he saw Austad return to the scene after briefly stepping

away.

Even if Austad’s visual assessment did not constitute adequate medical

assistance, the officers’ reliance on it was reasonable. Unlike the officers, Austad

had medical expertise, and Fair did not appear to have any obvious serious or life-

threatening injury. Austad never recommended transporting Fair to a hospital, so it

was reasonable for the officers to first send Fair to the detention center where they

knew he would receive treatment and further diagnosis.

Our Fourth Amendment analysis is an objective one, without “the 20/20

vision of hindsight.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). While waiting,

the officers could have spoken to Fair in a more professional-like manner. But we

may not consider their subjective intent. Rodriguez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 891

F.3d 776, 797 (9th Cir. 2018). They did not violate Fair’s right to “objectively

reasonable post-arrest care.” Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1099.

2. Excessive Force

Fair also argues that Turley violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free

from excessive force by forcing him to walk on his injured leg. 1 In evaluating

1 Fair abandoned his excessive force claim against Ryndak in the District Court when seeking leave to amend his complaint.

3 24-1846 excessive force claims, we balance “‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the

individual’s Fourth Amendment interests’ against the countervailing governmental

interests at stake.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S.

1, 8 (1985)). Here, the “type and amount of force inflicted” were insignificant and

outweighed by the governmental interest. Rice v. Morehouse, 989 F.3d 1112, 1121

(9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Lowry v. City of San Diego, 858 F.3d 1248, 1256 (9th Cir.

2017)). Turley used minimal force by having Fair walk two short distances, acting

on a belief—reasonable at the time—that Fair either was feigning an injury or was

not seriously injured. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Turley therefore did not violate

Fair’s right to be free from excessive force.

AFFIRMED.

4 24-1846