\u201cAppellant Brittney Kennedy appeals the dismissal of constitutional claims she brought on behalf of her deceased husband, Marquis Kennedy, who suffered a cardiac arrest after a self-defense simulation for police-cadet training. She claims the district court erred by concluding that the training exercise involved no constitutional seizure and that the officers owed Marquis no constitutional duty of medical care. [\u00b6] Marquis’s death is a tragedy, above all for his surviving wife and child. Like the district court, however, we cannot find any plausible allegation that the defendants violated the Constitution. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.\u201d Kennedy v. City of Arlington, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 3535 (5th Cir. Feb. 4, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There\u2019s a fact dispute on the reasonableness of force, so no qualified immunity. Lewis v. Nanos, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 3479 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s arrest at a Salvation Army conference room wasn\u2019t in his residence, although he stayed there. Walker v. Gatsios, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 3416 (7th Cir. Feb. 2, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cAppellant Brittney Kennedy appeals the dismissal of constitutional claims she brought on behalf of her deceased husband, Marquis Kennedy, who suffered a cardiac arrest after a self-defense simulation for police-cadet training. She claims the district court erred by concluding that … Continue reading