A federal appeals panel Monday upheld a jury verdict that cleared the city of Los Angeles and two police officers of any wrongdoing in an excessive force lawsuit.
The lawsuit had alleged the officers used excessive force against a former Deutsche Bank executive who said he was handcuffed, taken to a hotel and beaten with a baton.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed dismissals of separate claims brought by plaintiff Brian Mulligan against the L.A. Police Protective League and Eric Rose, who was then a media consultant for the police union.
Mulligan sued the police department and officers James Nichols and John Miller, alleging they violated his civil rights, used unreasonable force and committed battery during a May 2012, arrest.
Attorneys for the officers successfully argued that Mulligan was out of control on “bath salts” and had attacked them. The civil jury found in favor of the defendants after a three-day trial in January 2014.
Mulligan sued the Protective League and its then-consultant for allegedly retaliating against him by issuing a statement and releasing an audiotape made days previously in which Mulligan admits to using “bath salts” during an interview with a Glendale police officer.
“We affirm the judgments of the district court,” Judge Richard R. Clifton wrote in the appellate opinion. “The statements allegedly made against Mulligan as joint state actions by the LAPPL were not sufficiently adverse to support a claim of First Amendment retaliation.
“Consequently, the district court’s grant of summary judgment for that claim was proper,” the judge wrote. “Similarly, the district court did not err in its decisions regarding Mulligan’s police negligence, excessive force and negligent supervision claims.”
Rose told City News Service that he was pleased with the circuit court’s rejection of Mulligan’s “attempt to quell public speech.”
“One cannot hold a high-profile news conference accusing public officials of misconduct and threaten those same public officials with liability for unlawful retaliation if they respond to those allegations,” he said. “As the 9th Circuit wrote in no uncertain terms, the First Amendment constitutional guarantee of free speech applies to public officials, as well as citizens.”
–City News Service