CA10: Ptf has burden on “clearly established law” and failed

The plaintiff in a § 1983 case has the burden on clearly established law, and here the showing completely failed. “Anemic.” Bailey v. Beale, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14449 (10th Cir. June 12, 2025).*

“[T]he individual officers did not violate clearly established law because at least one of the charges was supported by probable cause.” Rasawehr v. Grey, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14430 (6th Cir. June 10, 2025).*

“As Carter acknowledges, the Fourth Amendment requires analysis of the totality of the circumstances, and, as the Supreme Court has reiterated, the totality-of-the-circumstances approach ‘precludes this sort of divide-and-conquer analysis.’ See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274 (2002); … Under the totality of the circumstances, Carter was inconsistent with police officers and had inside knowledge about the crime. These facts taken together are sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. … Carter also does not point to any materially false facts or omissions that would negate the finding of probable cause. Without such facts or omissions, this Court cannot infer a reckless disregard for the truth. … Carter has not carried his burden to plead a constitutional violation. Thus, the district court properly held that Ludwick and Kious are entitled to qualified immunity on Carter’s false arrest claim.” Carter v. Ludwick, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14436 (8th Cir. June 12, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Probable cause, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.