Affirmation of Objective Reasonableness and Handcuffing Analysis in Excessive Force Claims

1. Introduction

In Ketcham v. City of Mount Vernon, No. 24-825 (2d Cir. May 27, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed a bench-trial judgment in which the district court rejected a § 1983 excessive-force claim and related state-law assault and battery claims brought by Ronald Ketcham against the City of Mount Vernon and two plainclothes officers. Ketcham alleged that Officers Hutchins and Patterson used unreasonable force when effecting his arrest on a warrant for forcible touching and that the officers applied unduly tight handcuffs. On appeal, Ketcham argued principally that the district court misapplied Graham v. Connor and imposed an improper “serious physical injury” requirement for his handcuffing claim. The Second Circuit affirmed, reaffirming the objective-reasonableness standard under Graham and clarifying the proper analytical role of injury evidence in handcuffing cases under Cugini v. City of New York.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit held that:

• The district court’s factual findings—such as the officers’ legitimate warrant, Ketcham’s defensive posture, refusal to identify himself, and prolonged physical resistance—were not clearly erroneous.
• Applying the three Graham factors (severity of the crime, threat to officers, active resistance), the officers’ use of force was objectively reasonable.
• The court did not require proof of a “serious physical injury” to sustain a handcuffing-based excessive-force claim; rather, under Cugini, the degree of wrist injury is one relevant factor in gauging whether an officer should have known his use of force was excessive.
• Because the federal claim failed, the parallel New York assault and battery claims also failed, as they mirror the § 1983 reasonableness standard.

Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s March 31, 2023 judgment in favor of the City and the two officers.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
  Established the objective-reasonableness framework for Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims, instructing courts to examine (1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat, and (3) whether the suspect is resisting or evading arrest.
• Citibank, N.A. v. Brigade Cap. Mgmt., LP, 49 F.4th 42 (2d Cir. 2022)
  Reaffirms de novo review of mixed questions of law and fact on appeal.
• GAMCO Invs., Inc. v. Vivendi Universal, S.A., 838 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2016)
  Clarifies the standard of review for district-court findings after a bench trial (clear error for fact, de novo for law).
• Cugini v. City of New York, 941 F.3d 604 (2d Cir. 2019)
  Holds that, in handcuffing claims, courts may consider whether (a) cuffs were unreasonably tight, (b) officers ignored complaints, and (c) the degree of wrist injury, while emphasizing that the overarching question is whether an officer should have known the force was excessive.
• Tardif v. City of New York, 991 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 2021)
  Notes that New York assault and battery and § 1983 excessive-force claims share substantially identical elements and reasonableness standards.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court reaffirmed that an excessive-force inquiry is purely objective: the officers’ subjective motives are irrelevant. Under Graham, the Second Circuit agreed with the district court’s view that the first two factors cut against Ketcham (he faced a forcible-touching warrant and posed a threat). The key dispute concerned the third factor—active resistance. Although Ketcham claimed his resistance was justified because the officers had not clearly identified themselves, the record showed that Officer Patterson displayed a badge, Ketcham refused to comply or identify himself, assumed a defensive posture, screamed, and physically resisted for minutes—even bracing his leg against the patrol car to avoid being placed inside. These facts supported the district court’s finding that the officers used reasonable force.

On the handcuffing claim, the court explained that no “serious physical injury” threshold exists. Instead, under Cugini, injury evidence helps assess whether an officer “reasonably should have known” the force was excessive. The absence of significant injury, coupled with the prolonged struggle, supported the conclusion that the tightness of the handcuffs did not cross the line into unreasonable force.

3.3 Impact

Ketcham v. Mount Vernon reinforces key principles in excessive-force jurisprudence:

• It affirms that the Graham factors remain the controlling framework in the Second Circuit and that active resistance—even if technically justified—must be assessed objectively against the totality of the circumstances.
• It clarifies that in handcuffing cases, courts need not impose a bright-line injury requirement; instead, they may weigh the extent of injury as one of several indicators of objective excessiveness.
• It underscores the evidentiary importance of officers’ clear identification (e.g., badges or shields) when operating in plain clothes.
• It confirms that federal summary orders may be cited under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, offering guidance in future excessive-force litigation within the Second Circuit.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Objective Reasonableness: Courts ask whether a hypothetical reasonable officer, facing the same facts, would have used similar force—not what the particular officer subjectively intended.
• Summary Order: A non-precedential appellate decision that may nonetheless be cited if filed after January 1, 2007, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1.
• Bench Trial Standard of Review: After a bench trial, factual findings are reviewed for clear error (high deference), while legal conclusions and mixed questions receive de novo review (no deference).
• Handcuffing Analysis under Cugini: Examines whether (1) cuffs were unreasonably tight, (2) officers ignored complaints, and (3) degree of injury—serving as proxies for whether an officer should have known the force was excessive.

5. Conclusion

Ketcham v. Mount Vernon stands as a clear reaffirmation of the objective-reasonableness standard in § 1983 excessive-force claims and a practical guide for analyzing handcuffing disputes. The decision underscores that officers’ use of force must be judged against the totality of circumstances, including a suspect’s resistance and any identifiable threats, and clarifies that injury evidence in handcuffing claims is relevant but not dispositive. Trial courts and practitioners in the Second Circuit will look to this summary order for guidance on resolving similar disputes, ensuring consistency in applying Graham and Cugini in future cases.