Horan
Mason v. Horan
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Appellant brought an excessive-force claim against appellee David Horan, an agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration. After initially denying Horan’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the district court reconsidered its ruling in light of the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). This appeal followed. The issue before this Court is whether the district court correctly found that the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that Horan was entitled to qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
*968 Even when a reasonable juror could find “on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions” that a police officer used excessive force, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless there was “a clearly established rule prohibiting [him] from acting as he did.” Id. at 209 . “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id. at 202 .