A few § 1983 cases on QI and summary judgment

Ordering plaintiff out of the Sheriff’s Office lobby for fear of disruption was novel as a potential seizure and that’s subject to qualified immunity. “Sheriff Crone’s conduct in ordering Mr. Brandt to leave the lobby due to a perceived disruption of office operations appears to present a novel Fourth Amendment issue, or at least one that is not beyond debate. Sheriff Crone is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Brandt’s Fourth Amendment claim.” Brandt v. Crone, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8104 (10th Cir. Mar. 28, 2022).

Factual disputes underlying qualified immunity bar summary judgment for the defense and appellate jurisdiction. Bayon v. Berkebile, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8011 (7th Cir. Mar. 28, 2022).*

A use of force in school against an unruly student with behavioral disorders stated a claim, The assertion of qualified immunity here falls short. Discovery will proceed. Medina v. Izquierdo, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55263 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 28, 2022).*

“The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sandoval failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Melvin’s use of force was unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances.” Sandoval v. Melvin, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8095 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2022).*

In this excessive force case: “Based on the video evidence, no reasonable jury could believe Gasser’s versions of the events. Scott, 550 U.S. at 380 (;When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.’). Therefore, we are left with the video recording’s version of the incident and Gasser’s admission that she did not comply when Officer Gainer told her to sit down.” Gasser v. Vill. of Pleasant Prairie, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8015 (7th Cir. Mar. 28, 2022).*

Violation of prison policy is not per se a constitutional violation. The use of force in prison here was not unreasonable. Hamel v. Williams, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56155 (E.D.Ark. Mar. 7, 2022).*

“The district court properly dismissed Coryellbattle’s Fourth Amendment claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution because probable cause existed to arrest Coryellbattle under Arizona [law]. Likewise, the existence of probable cause defeats Coryellbattle’s First Amendment claim.” Coryellbattle v. City of Maricopa, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8212 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.