Topic
Every decision we've filed under Civil Rights - Section 1983.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for a police officer who shot and killed a fleeing, unarmed teenager who made no threatening movements with a weapon. The court held that under clearly established law, an officer cannot use deadly force against a suspect who is armed but poses no immediate threat to safety.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se civil rights complaint because the appellant failed to challenge the specific legal basis for the lower court's order in his informal brief. Under Fourth Circuit Rule 34(b), this omission forfeited appellate review, leaving the district court's dismissal and denial of postjudgment motions intact.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se civil rights action because the appellant failed to challenge the district court's reasoning in his informal brief. Additionally, the court held that the appellant's objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation were not sufficiently specific to preserve the issues for appeal.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for law enforcement officers, holding that a traffic stop and arrest warrant were supported by probable cause under the totality of the circumstances. The court found sufficient evidence of witness intimidation to justify the seizure, rejecting the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim.
The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of qualified immunity, holding that a non-threatening, unarmed, and passively resisting suspect possesses a clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unnecessary K-9 deployment. The court concluded that Officer Hagen's use of force was disproportionate under existing precedent, requiring the case to proceed to trial rather than being dismissed at this procedural stage.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for federal agents, ruling they retained qualified immunity because the warrant was not facially deficient and the agents did not deliberately deceive the magistrate. The court held that the affidavit provided a colorable argument for probable cause despite the Plaintiffs' allegations of overbreadth and misrepresentation.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a First Amendment retaliation claim against Sheriff Captain Tom Boelts, finding his internal communications did not chill a person of ordinary firmness. However, the court reversed the dismissal against Lieutenant John Johnson, holding that the plaintiff adequately alleged the initiation of criminal proceedings without probable cause.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of qualified immunity to Officer Harris, holding that no clearly established law prohibited his warning against using foul language in public near children during a noise complaint investigation. The court found that Ward's belligerent conduct provided arguable probable cause for a disorderly conduct arrest, defeating his constitutional claims.
The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Trooper Nicholas Stolar, holding that while omitting self-defense evidence from a probable cause affidavit can violate the Fourth Amendment, the right was not clearly established at the time of the arrest. Consequently, Trooper Stolar retains qualified immunity despite the court's new rule requiring officers to disclose known facts that conclusively negate the mental state of a charged crime.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Wade Reeves' pro se complaint against state officials for failing to meet the pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in closing the case without granting leave to amend because the complaint lacked a short, plain statement of the claim and the proposed amendments would have been futile.