CA5: At summary judgment stage, “[t]his is an obvious case” that can’t be resolved on summary judgment

“The summary judgment facts, as determined by the district court, are that Ryan posed no threat to the officers or others to support firing without warning. The ‘Officers had the time and opportunity to give a warning and yet chose to shoot first instead.’ This is an obvious case. Indeed, Officer Hunter conceded that he would have had no basis to fire upon Ryan unless Ryan had been facing him and pointing a gun at him. [¶] This case is obvious when we accept the facts as we must. It is also informed by our precedent. Before 2010, Baker v. Putnal established clearly that Cassidy’s and Hunter’s conduct—on the facts as we must take them at this stage—was unlawful.” Cole v. Carson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24807 (5th Cir. Aug. 20, 2019).*

Plaintiff doesn’t state a claim for relief for abuse of process when he was tested in custody for HIV and hepatitis under state law. He effectively admits that the state could do so. Bracey v. Huntingdon County, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24783 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Body searches, Excessive force. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.