Ben Nisenbaum

Burris Nisenbaum Curry & Lacy | Partner

Ben Nisenbaum joined Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy as a law clerk in 2001 when it was the Law Offices of John L. Burris. Committed to the work he started there, Ben rejoined in 2002 as a lawyer ready to fight on behalf of his clients. Over the years, he has become highly regarded as a civil rights and criminal defense lawyer.

Ben has represented his clients’ interests all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Notably, he appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments in the case of Sheehan v. City of San Francisco. He has also argued successfully numerous cases at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, resulting in several published 9th Circuit opinions upholding favorable District Court rulings, as well as overturning unfavorable district opinions.

Ben Nisenbaum exemplifies what it means to represent cases with persistence and integrity. As lead counsel, he takes on complex cases where the stakes are high. His cases have included a range of issues relevant to civil rights, police misconduct, and more. In a recent excessive force wrongful death case, the jury returned a $6 million verdict in favor of Nisenbaum’s client. This is one of many multi-million dollar verdicts Mr. Nisenbaum has achieved for his clients, with the highest verdict so far coming in 2015 in a civil rights police excessive force case of $11.3 million (fully upheld in a published 9th Circuit opinion). The dollar value of a verdict, however, is not what matters; what matters is that a verdict upholds his clients’ rights.

Prior to law school, Nisenbaum was a Counselor for the Lincoln Child Center, Counselor for Youth Homes, Inc. He was also a research assistant for Foxtree Language Psychology Lab, UC-Santa Cruz. These experiences, combined with his undergraduate degree in Psychology, have informed his law practice at Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy. Nisenbaum is able to use his academic knowledge of experimental methodology and Applied Cognitive Psychology (“Human Factors”) when defendants offer unfounded expert opinions in these areas. His determination to the get to the core of why police violate people’s rights, and demonstrating the effect on people’s lives caused by those violations underlines the compassion he has for his clients and the passion he has for defending our civil rights and liberties.

READ MORELESS

P: 510-839-5200 Northern California Office

About Ben Nisenbaum

University of California in Santa Cruz, B.A., Psychology (1997)
New College of California School of Law, J.D. (2002)

California, 2000

U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeal, Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of California
All California State Courts

Rising Stars, 2011 – 2015
Super Lawyers, 2021 – Present
Top 40 under 40, 2013

Theresa Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211, 1232 (9th Cir. 2014), rev'd in part, cert. dismissed in part sub nom. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al. v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 135 S. Ct. 1765, 191 L. Ed. 2d 856 (2015)
The Ninth Circuit overturned grant of summary judgment in a civil rights and ADA case against San Francisco and two of its police officers. The officers shot and disabled Ms. Sheehan in her own group home apartment while they were effecting a 5150. Ms. Sheehan suffers from a schizoaffective disorder. The Ninth Circuit found: (1) ADA applied, and a jury could have found the Defendants violated the ADA when they failed to consider her disability when responding; and (2) Defendants were not entitled to Qualified Immunity because they disregarded her known mental impairment and disability in responding to her. Defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held arguments on the case. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit on Qualified Immunity but kept the Ninth Circuit’s novel ruling that the ADA applied, finding cert was improvidently granted.

Hung Lam v. city of San Jose, Corp., 869 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2017)
A police officer shot and paralyzed Mr. Lam in the lower part of his body. Mr. Lam was making suicidal gestures with a knife in the front yard of the home he shared with his boyfriend. Mr. Lam never threatened anyone, but the responding San Jose police officer misperceived the event and shot Mr. Lam in the back. An eyewitness who was a retired sheriff’s deputy confirmed that Mr. Lam threatened only himself when the officer shot him. A jury returned an $11.3 million dollar verdict for Mr. Lam after finding the officer violated Mr. Lam’s Fourth Amendment rights and used excessive force.
The Estate of Sahleem Tindle, et al. v. Joseph Mateu, III,, (N.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2020), Yolanda Banks-Reed v. Joseph Mateu III and Bay Area Rapid Transit, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-05755-YGR
A BART police officer shot and killed Sahleem Tindle. The officer was responding to the sound of gunshots and saw two men on a sidewalk near a BART station struggle over a handgun. The officer ordered the two men to show their hands. Mr. Tindle attempted to comply but was shot by the officer. The officer falsely claimed he saw Mr. Tindle try to stand and turn to shoot him. The officer’s body cam, however, showed that Mr. Tindle remained on his knees with both hands raised, although one hand was held by the other man involved in the struggle. The body cam also showed that the gun was on the ground. A jury returned a $6 million verdict for violation of the 4 th Amendment for using excessive force. The Ninth Circuit upheld the verdict.

Case Results

Reginald Oliver v. City of Oakland

Oakland Police keep fabricating evidence and lying about minorities to arrest and prosecute them for supposed “gang” crimes, in violation of a settlement that prohibits …

Named plaintiff Reginald Oliver claims the Oakland PD continues violating the Constitution, in defiance of the settlement in Delphine Allen e al. v. City of Oakland, USDC No. C-00-4599 TEH, also known as "The Riders" litigation. Read Full Course

Jane Smith v. City of Oakland

Racial profiling of Asian women by police officer resulting in a class action complaint for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief

Finding evidence about defendant's post-conviction parole violation unfairly prejudicial "since the jury could have construed that parole violation as character evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)" Read Full Course

Rodney King v. City of Los Angeles

Rodney King has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have Judge John G. Davies disqualified from presiding at the trial of …

Rodney King waited too long to file a malpractice suit against the first of 27 lawyers who represented him in connection with the infamous beating he suffered from Los Angeles police in 1991, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. The ruling by Div. Two affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann Kough’s grant of summary judgment to Steven Lerman. King earlier this year dismissed his appeal of Kough’s ruling in favor of two other lawyers sued in the case, Federico Sayre and John Burris. Read Full Course

Explore all our cases

Ben Nisenbaum

Civil rights lawyer John Burris confronts police narratives

John Burris Video 2020

Colin Kaepernick Tribute Video

Ben Nisenbaum

Education

Areas of Practice

Bar Admissions

Courts Admitted

Awards and Recognition

Representative Cases

Civil rights lawyer John Burris confronts police narratives

John Burris Video 2020

Colin Kaepernick Tribute Video