Heather Blanchard v. County of Los Angeles

facts show an “evolving set of circumstances” taking place over a short period of

time, necessitating “fast action” and “repeated split-second decisions,” we apply

the “purpose to harm” standard to determine if an officer’s actions shock the

conscience. Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2008).

** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 1 The district court granted summary judgment on Wear’s Fourteenth Amendment claims, but denied summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claims and the state law claims against Deputy Pawluk. Those claims will proceed to trial and are not before us.

2 Here, we apply the “purpose to harm” standard because there was no

“opportunity for actual deliberation.” Id. at 1138. Deputies Pawluk and De Casas

arrived at a chaotic scene near an elementary school when postal officers were

unsuccessfully attempting to detain Joseph. Deputy Pawluk immediately went to

assist, and it took several minutes for him to handcuff Joseph, who continued to

struggle during the entire incident. Accordingly, the district court properly…