CA7: Cautionary tale in § 1983 case: “this appeal is a mess”

A confusing case presented from both sides, a cautionary tale: “this appeal is a mess.” Cave v. Valenti, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9405 (7th Cir. Apr. 21, 2025):

Two police officers appeal the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for various alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment. To say the least, this appeal is a mess. We have had a very difficult time discerning what claims involving what parties are properly before us, leaving us half inclined to dismiss the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8) for deficient briefing by both parties. Having spent considerable time with the record, however, we find ourselves, if only barely, able to conclude that the district court properly resolved some but not all issues presented by the officers. So we affirm in part and reverse in part.

. . .

We commend the district court for the patience and care it took with what can only be described as a confused and muddled presentation by both parties. The confusion started at the outset of the litigation. The plaintiffs’ complaint contained but a single count broadly alleging multiple violations of the Fourth Amendment in a series of bullet points. Even if not legally required, the better approach–one that brings substantial organization to a plaintiffs’ complaint–is to allege each violation within its own count. But the plaintiffs were not the only ones who proceeded in a disorganized fashion. For its part, the defendant officers’ motion for summary judgment did little more than recite boilerplate qualified immunity law, without going the next step and explaining how the law applied to the facts before the district court. Nobody was well served by the parties’ poor presentation in the district court.