Grossman v. City of Portland
33 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 1994)
Holding
The Ninth Circuit held that a police officer who used excessive force during an encounter with a citizen was not entitled to qualified immunity, and that the City of Portland could be held liable under Monell if its policies or customs contributed to the constitutional violation. The court clarified the standards for municipal liability and individual officer liability in excessive force cases.
What This Case Is About
Dr. Charles M. Grossman, a physician, brought a § 1983 action against the City of Portland and Officer Todd Davis after an encounter with Portland police in which Grossman alleged the officer used excessive and unjustified physical force against him. Grossman sued both the officer individually for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and the City of Portland under Monell v. Department of Social Services, arguing that the city’s policies, customs, or failure to train its officers contributed to the constitutional violation.
What the Court Decided
The Ninth Circuit addressed both the individual liability of Officer Davis and the municipal liability of the City of Portland. On the individual claim, the court applied the Graham v. Connor objective reasonableness test and found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances. The court held that Officer Davis was not entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from excessive force during a police encounter was clearly established. On the municipal liability claim, the court examined whether the city had policies or customs that amounted to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its citizens, providing important guidance on how Monell claims should be evaluated in the Ninth Circuit.
Why This Case Matters for Pro Se Litigants
This case is an important Ninth Circuit precedent for anyone bringing an excessive force claim in Oregon or any other state within the Ninth Circuit (which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). It demonstrates that cities can be held liable alongside individual officers when municipal policies or customs contribute to constitutional violations. For pro se litigants, the case shows the importance of investigating and documenting a police department’s training, policies, and history of complaints—evidence that can support a Monell claim against the city and increase the potential for meaningful recovery. The case also confirms that qualified immunity is not automatic and can be defeated when the constitutional right at issue was clearly established.