Student's excessive force claim against the school is revived on appeal

It never would have occurred to me back in high school that I could actually sue the high school over anything. I did not know that students have rights and that the federal courts will sustain those rights if the kids have a case. In this case, the student sued the school over the use of excessive force by one of the security guards. 

The case is Concepcion v. New York City Dept. of Education, a summary order issued on November 30. Plaintiff brought two claims: false arrest and excessive force. It all started when plaintiff showed up to a school assembly a minute late; the teacher says plaintiff cursed at her when she asked if he was supposed to be there, but plaintiff testified that he only said, "I do belong here." When the security officer began escorting plaintiff to the dean's office, plaintiff refused and said he wanted to call his mother. The officer and plaintiff went to a stairwell to talk this over. Eventually, other security officers had to push plaintiff along because he was blocking foot traffic. On the way to the dean's office, according to plaintiff, the officers grabbed his arms. The officers say plaintiff tried to take a swing at them. When the officers grasped plaintiff's arms, everyone fell to the floor. Plaintiff says one security officer next pushed him through a doorway and threw him to the floor. Someone else put a knee to plaintiff's head to hold him down until someone handcuffed him. 

The false arrest claim (premised on the seizure) is rejected on appeal. The Second Circuit (Lohier, Park and Rakoff [D.J.]) finds there was probable cause to detain plaintiff for obstructing governmental administration, as there is no dispute that plaintiff physically restricted the security officers on the way to the dean's office. 

But the excessive force claim, dismissed on the summary judgment motion, is revived on appeal. While the district court held that plaintiff had resisted the officers' authority, that does not mean that any force was necessary. Excessive force claims require the court to consider the nature of the charge against the plaintiff and whether the necessary force turned into excessive force. The leading case on this issue is Sullivan v. Gagnier, 225 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2000), holding that "the fact that person whom the police attempts to arrest resists . . . no doubt justifies the office using some degree of force, but it does not give the officer license to use force without limit." The obstructing governmental administration charge was relatively minor such that any force to restrain plaintiff had to be judicious. We also consider whether the plaintiff posed a safety threat to the officers. While the officers claimed that plaintiff made a threatening gesture, plaintiff denies that and the record does not conclusively prove he did so. These issues are for the jury.