Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Viewing the facts from the officers' perspective at the time, did the officers act reasonably under the Fourth Amendment by using bodyweight pressure to restrain a potentially armed and actively resisting individual only until handcuffing could be accomplished?
2. Did the panel err in denying qualified immunity where no case clearly established that pre-handcuffing bodyweight pressure violates the Fourth Amendment?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Viewing the facts from the officers' perspective at the time, did the officers act reasonably under the Fourth Amendment by using bodyweight pressure to restrain a potentially armed and actively resisting individual only until handcuffing could be accomplished?
2026-04-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2026.
2026-03-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/2/2026.
2026-03-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2026.
2026-03-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2026.
2026-03-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/6/2026.
2026-02-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/27/2026.
2026-02-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/20/2026.
2026-01-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/23/2026.
2026-01-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/16/2026.
2026-01-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-12-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/12/2025.
2025-12-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/5/2025.
2025-11-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/21/2025.
2025-11-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/14/2025.
2025-11-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
2025-10-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/17/2025.
2025-09-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/10/2025.
2025-09-18
Record received from the United States District Court of the District of Nevada. The record is electronic and is available on PACER.
2025-09-18
Record received electronically from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and available with the Clerk.
2025-08-29
Reply of petitioners Kyle Smith, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2025-08-29
Reply of petitioners Kyle Smith, et al. filed.
2025-08-29
Reply of Kyle Smith, et al. submitted.
2025-08-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-08-12
Brief of respondents Rochelle Scott, et al. in opposition filed.
2025-08-12
Brief of Rochelle Scott, et al. in opposition submitted.
2025-05-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 12, 2025.
2025-05-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 13, 2025 to August 12, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-05-19
Motion of Rochelle Scott, et al. for an extension of time submitted.
2025-05-14
Response Requested. (Due June 13, 2025)
2025-05-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/29/2025.
2025-05-09
Brief amici curiae of National Police Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2025-05-09
Amicus brief of The National Police Association and The Police Officers' Defense Coalition submitted.
2025-05-09
Brief amici curiae of The National Police Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2025-05-06
Waiver of right of respondent Rochelle Scott, et al. to respond filed.
2025-05-06
Waiver of Rochelle Scott, et al. of right to respond submitted.
2025-04-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 22, 2025)
2025-02-02
Application (24A752) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until April 18, 2025.
2025-01-29
Application (24A752) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 17, 2025 to April 18, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.