\u201cHere, the only plausible reading of the allegations is that Doe accidentally shot Ulises while trying to help him by ending the hostage situation. Such accidental conduct does not result in a Fourth Amendment seizure. See Brower, 489 U.S. at 596; …. As a result, Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And even if arguendo Plaintiffs could allege a violation of the Fourth Amendment, cf. Milstead v. Kibler, 243 F.3d 157, 163-64 (4th Cir. 2001), …, they have not come close to doing so in a way that overcomes Agent Doe’s qualified immunity.\u201d Pearce v. Doe, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6822 (5th Cir. Mar. 9, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Younger abstention applies to plaintiff\u2019s \u00a7 1983 claims about his arrest and statements to officers. Talmadge v. Zwink, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43549 (D. Alaska Mar. 9, 2021).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cHere, the only plausible reading of the allegations is that Doe accidentally shot Ulises while trying to help him by ending the hostage situation. Such accidental conduct does not result in a Fourth Amendment seizure. See Brower, 489 U.S. at … Continue reading