The majority cites three other cases in support of its denial of qualified immunity on this portion of Bybee's detention claim:
Palmer v. Sanderson, 9 F.3d 1433, 1436(9th Cir.1993);
Alexander v. County of Los Angeles, 64 F.3d 1315, 1323 (9th Cir.1995); and
Heitschmidt v. City of Houston, 161 F.3d 834, 839 (5th Cir.1998). It is true that in each of these cases the presiding court denied qualified immunity to the defendant on a claim that involved handcuffing the plaintiff too tightly, causing pain. However, in each of these cases, the issue of uncomfortable handcuffing arose in the context of an
excessive force claim, not an unlawful detention claim. In
Heitschmidt, the handcuffing claim is not discussed as part of the analysis of the plaintiff's unlawful detention claim, but only in section IV of the Fifth Circuit's opinion, which begins: “Heitschmidt also claims that the defendants subjected him to excessive force.”
Heitschmidt, 161 F.3d at 839–40. Likewise, in
Palmer, the Court considered the plaintiff's allegations regarding painful handcuffing only in the context of the plaintiff's excessive force claim, and not in connection with the plaintiff's unlawful arrest claim.
See Palmer, 9 F.3d at 1436. Most relevant to the case at hand is
Alexander, in which this Court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's unlawful arrest claim,
see Alexander, 64 F.3d at 1318–22, but that they
were not entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's excessive force claim based in part on the defendant's improper use of handcuffs,
see id. at 1322–23.