CA2: Excessive force claims are new under Bivens and can’t be brought

Excessive force claims are new for Bivens, and rejected. Here, it was his restraint in a courtroom by US Marshals and CSOs. Edwards v. Gizzi, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17100 (2d Cir. July 12, 2024).

Plaintiff was shot in the eye with a chemical projectile during a George Floyd protest. Factual disputes preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity for the officer. Marks v. Bauer, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17076 (8th Cir. July 12, 2024).*

It was not clearly established that the use of force with the intent to disperse or repel a crowd constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Wolk v. City of Brooklyn Ctr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17069 (8th Cir. July 12, 2024).*

“We hold that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim that his use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment when he fired at a suspect of a potentially violent crime who, despite repeated commands, charged the officer at full speed and advanced to close proximity to the officer. Such conduct was not objectively unreasonable and, even if it was, did not violate clearly established law.” Rambert v. City of Greenville, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17127 (4th Cir. July 12, 2024).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.