Anderson v. Ferguson – No Clearly-Established Prohibition on Police Use of the “Mandibular-Angle” Pressure Point Technique

Introduction

In Albert Anderson v. B. Ferguson, No. 22-7199 (4th Cir. July 31, 2025) (unpublished), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit confronted the novel question whether an officer’s momentary application of the mandibular-angle pressure point technique on a handcuffed suspect constituted clearly established excessive force for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity.

Plaintiff–appellant Albert Anderson sued several Winston-Salem police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Officer B. Ferguson used the pressure-point technique for nine seconds while Anderson lay handcuffed on the roadway following a foot chase. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers, holding that the right at issue was not clearly established. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit—Chief Judge Diaz and Judge Benjamin in the majority, Judge Heytens dissenting in part—affirmed that ruling and, additionally, upheld the district court’s denial of Anderson’s motion to amend his complaint to add further officers.

Although unpublished, the decision is the first Fourth Circuit opinion to address the mandibular-angle pressure point in a qualified-immunity context. It therefore supplies important persuasive guidance on the outer limits of clearly established excessive-force doctrine.

Summary of the Judgment

• Qualified Immunity: The court assumed—without deciding—that Ferguson’s conduct could amount to excessive force, but held that no prior precedent put the unconstitutionality of momentary mandibular-angle pressure on a still-moving, handcuffed suspect “beyond debate.” Qualified immunity therefore shielded Ferguson.
• Motion to Amend: The panel affirmed the district court’s discretionary denial of Anderson’s belated effort to add six additional defendants, finding the proposed amendments futile and unduly delaying.
• Dissent: Judge Heytens agreed Ferguson was immune but would have vacated the denial of leave to amend because the district court relied on impermissible factors (withdrawal of a prior amendment request and docket delay) rather than futility, prejudice, or bad faith.

Analysis

a. Precedents Cited

The controlling inquiry was whether existing caselaw made it clearly established that Ferguson’s conduct was unconstitutional. The majority canvassed Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court authority:

• Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) – Establishes the objective “reasonableness” standard for excessive-force claims.
• Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) – Introduces the two-step qualified-immunity framework.
• Recent Fourth Circuit Excessive-Force Cases
  • Young v. Prince George’s County, 355 F.3d 751 (2004)
  • Meyers v. Baltimore County, 713 F.3d 723 (2013)
  • Jones v. Buchanan, 325 F.3d 520 (2003)
  • Omeish v. Kincaid, 86 F.4th 546 (2023)
  These cases condemn gratuitous force on restrained, non-resisting suspects.
• Qualified-Immunity Clarifiers
  • District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018) – Must identify authority “particularized” to the facts.
  • Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1 (2021) – Even multiple circuit-level decisions may be insufficient absent close factual match.

The majority found no case—within or outside the Fourth Circuit—addressing pressure-point use on a still-moving, freshly hand-cuffed suspect who recently fled and was believed armed. Existing cases instead dealt with clearly passive or compliant individuals. Therefore, “every reasonable officer” could not be said to know Ferguson’s conduct was unconstitutional.

b. Legal Reasoning

1. Step Two First. Exercising the discretion permitted by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), the court addressed the “clearly established” prong first, declining to confirm or deny a constitutional violation.
2. Novelty of the Technique. The opinion emphasizes that the mandibular-angle pressure point has rarely appeared in judicial opinions, creating a dearth of on-point precedent.
3. Fact-Specific Comparison. Drawing on Wesby and City of Tahlequah v. Bond, 595 U.S. 9 (2021), the majority required nearly identical facts before treating a right as clearly established.
4. Officer-Perspective Lens. Consistent with Graham, the majority stressed Anderson’s persistent movement, the recent foot chase, and the reported firearm as context justifying limited force.
5. Academic Context. A noteworthy footnote cited policing scholarship indicating that 85 % of North-American academies teach pressure-point control techniques, reinforcing why a reasonable officer would not deem the tactic forbidden.

c. Likely Impact

• Qualified-Immunity Boundary-Setting. The decision tightens the already demanding “clearly established” standard, signaling that less-lethal control techniques unaddressed in prior caselaw will often be protected by immunity unless plaintiffs can marshal near-identical authority.
• Training & Policy. Departments may cite the opinion to continue teaching pressure-point tactics, while civil-rights litigants will need to develop expert testimony or empirical evidence showing the inherent excessive-force risk of such methods.
• Dissent’s Foothold. Judge Heytens’s partial dissent provides an alternative roadmap for challenging denials of amendment when district courts rely on docket-management concerns rather than the triad of futility, prejudice, or bad faith.
• Future Litigation. Plaintiffs alleging misconduct involving neck-area pressure must now distinguish Anderson by demonstrating total compliance, prolonged pressure, or accompanying injuries.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Immunity

A two-step legal shield for government officials. Even if an officer might have violated the Constitution, they can avoid civil liability if (1) the right allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time or (2) no violation occurred. A right is “clearly established” only when existing precedent places the unlawfulness of the conduct beyond debate.

Mandibular-Angle Pressure Point

A pain-compliance technique where an officer presses a thumb or knuckle behind a suspect’s ear at the junction of the jaw and skull. Intended to cause sharp, temporary pain prompting compliance without lasting injury. Generally taught in use-of-force curricula as an intermediate control method.

Futility of Amendment

Courts may refuse to let a plaintiff add new claims or defendants when those changes would not survive a motion to dismiss or summary judgment—saving judicial resources and the opposing party’s time.

Conclusion

Anderson v. Ferguson underscores the formidable hurdle plaintiffs face when suing officers for novel or specialized restraint methods. Absent prior authority condemning the precise technique in comparable circumstances, qualified immunity will likely shield officers. At the same time, the dissent reminds district courts that Rule 15(a) limits the grounds for denying amendments. Together, the opinions map both the substantive and procedural terrain for future § 1983 excessive-force litigation within and beyond the Fourth Circuit.