Myles v. County of San Diego, et al., 9th Circuit (2025)
Facts
The underlying incident occurred on September 5, 2014.
Myles was stopped by San Diego Sheriff deputies while driving with his younger brother.
According to testimony and evidence:
Deputies handcuffed Myles.
Deputy Banks ordered the K9 to “grab” Myles even though Myles was restrained (I.e., handcuffed).
The K9 bit him while he was handcuffed and “not resisting,” as the jury found.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Myles, awarding significant damages.
Issues on Appeal & Holdings
Qualified Immunity / Excessive Force & K9 Deployment
The 9th Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to Deputy Banks.
The court emphasized that precedent had already “clearly established” that deploying a police dog against a handcuffed, fully compliant arrestee is excessive force.
The court cited earlier Ninth Circuit doctrine (e.g., Mendoza v. Block) holding that using a K9 on a restrained and non-resisting person is unconstitutional.
Discovery Sanctions & Monell Claim Revival
The court upheld discovery sanctions that revived Myles’s Monell (municipal liability) claims, because defendants failed to produce K9 training/evaluation documents responsive to discovery.
The court concluded that sanctions for withholding of evidence were within the district court’s discretion.
Damages & Remittitur / New Trial
The court agreed that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive relative to the evidence presented.
The Ninth Circuit remanded for remittitur or a new trial on damages only (I.e., liability would stand, but the amount must be reconsidered) with a suggested upper limit of $1,500,000.
Because of that remand, the appellate court vacated the attorneys’ fee award tied to the prior damages judgment.
Jury Instructions & Evidence of Concealment
The appellate panel affirmed that the jury instruction regarding the County’s concealment of evidence (a spoliation inference) was proper in context.
The court found no reversible error in the phrasing of the instructions, even if minor miswording occurred.
Key Legal Principles & Significance
K9 on restrained suspects: This case underscores the principle that once a suspect is handcuffed and no longer resisting, further use of a K9 is clearly excessive force.
Qualified immunity limits: The decision reinforces that some scenarios (K9 on a restrained, nonresisting person) are so settled that officers cannot claim immunity.
Evidentiary and discovery obligations: The case illustrates how failure to produce K9 training or evaluation materials can result in sanctions and revived claims.
Damage scrutiny: High jury awards in civil rights cases involving K9 force are subject to significant appellate scrutiny, especially when evidence of long-term injury is weak or speculative.
Remand for damages only: Appellate courts may preserve liability findings while remanding to correct excessive or unsubstantiated damage awards.
