Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Cardenas v. Fisher

307 Fed. Appx. 122 (2009)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

Cardenas v. Fisher

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

307 Fed. Appx. 122 (2009)


Officer Fisher (defendant) stopped a car that ran a stop sign, and the driver appeared to be drunk. The driver gave Fisher a license with the name Isaac Romero. While Fisher began writing paperwork for the stop, the driver fled into a nearby apartment complex, where Cardenas and his mother, Prieto, (plaintiffs) lived in separate apartments. Cardenas was decorating for Christmas in his mother’s apartment when Fisher and two other officers knocked. Although Cardenas matched some of the suspect’s physical traits, Cardenas was not wearing matching clothes and appeared to be sober. Nonetheless, Fisher immediately handcuffed Cardenas very tightly. Although Cardenas corroborated his identity with his birth certificate, driver’s license, rent receipt, and utility bill, Fisher still believed that Cardenas was the suspect. Fisher then searched Cardenas’s apartment without a warrant or consent, took Cardenas to the police station, and charged Cardenas with concealing identity, eluding a police officer, and traffic charges. At the station, an officer loosened Cardenas’s handcuffs after observing that they were too tight. Cardenas had bruises and abrasions around his wrists from the handcuffs and was unable to work for two months. Cardenas was ultimately acquitted of all charges. Cardenas and Prieto then sued Fisher in federal court for unlawful arrest and excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Fisher moved for summary judgment, asserting a qualified-immunity defense, but the district court denied the motion. Fisher immediately appealed the denial of his summary-judgment motion before the case proceeded to trial. Fisher asserted that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably believed that Cardenas had committed the crime when the arrest occurred, and Fisher’s reasonable belief provided probable cause to lawfully arrest Cardenas. Fisher argued that the district court improperly credited eyewitness testimony, failed to consider Fisher’s trustworthy identifying information, and failed to consider how similar-looking Cardenas was to Fisher’s suspect. Fisher also argued that the amount of force used to arrest and handcuff Cardenas was objectively reasonable.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Tymkovich, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership