It was clearly established at the time that a chokehold on a no longer resisting detainee was excessive force and all officers participating were potentially responsible. Martinez v. City of Pittsburg, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 19207 (9th Cir. June 19, 2020):
Construing the facts in Appellees’ favor, clearly established law put each officer on notice that his actions made him an integral participant in the use of excessive force against Mr. Martinez. See Tuuamalemalo v. Greene, 946 F.3d 471, 477 (9th Cir. 2019) (“it was clearly established [before January 25, 2014] that the use of a chokehold on a non-resisting, restrained person violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on the use of excessive force”); Blankenhorn, 485 F.3d at 481 n.12 (denying qualified immunity to officer helping to handcuff the plaintiff because the handcuffing, although not excessively forceful in itself, “was instrumental in the officers’ gaining control of [him], which culminated in” excessive force); Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003) (“squeezing the breath from a compliant, prone, and handcuffed individual despite his pleas for air involves a degree of force that is greater than reasonable”).