Apr 28 2026
4th Cir. 24-2073 2-1

RICHARD P. HARROLD Plaintiff – v. LEWIS J. HAGEN

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.

Apr 28 2026
9th Cir. 2:21-cv-01681-DLR Unpublished

MARK ENTERPRISES CAR COMPANY, LLC, ET AL. V. ALI, ET AL.

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.

Apr 24 2026
10th Cir. 2:24-CV-00245-ABJ Panel Decision

Jarvis v. County of Teton Wyoming, et al.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Ryan-Michael Jarvis's civil rights complaint, ruling that law enforcement officers had probable cause to arrest him based on witness reports of threats and aggression at a music festival. The court held that the officers' actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the district court correctly applied absolute prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity to the defendants.

Apr 24 2026
10th Cir. 1:23-CV-00843-GPG-NRN Panel Decision

Puller, et al. v. Greco, et al.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a § 1983 false arrest and malicious prosecution claim against Denver police officers, ruling that the officers were protected by qualified immunity. The court held that an ambiguous surveillance video did not clearly establish that the officers lacked arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs.

Apr 23 2026
10th Cir. 1:20-CV-00612-RB-DLM Panel Decision

Vasquez v. Jones, et al.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a prisoner's Eighth Amendment supervisory liability claim against the Secretary of Corrections. The court held that generalized allegations of understaffing and poor training were insufficient to prove the official knew or should have known these conditions would specifically cause the plaintiff's injuries.

Apr 23 2026
10th Cir. 24-4101 Panel Decision

Sherratt v. Braithwaite, et al.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se civil rights lawsuit filed by a former inmate against multiple judges and prosecutors. The court held that state officials are not persons under federal civil rights statutes and that the defendants were protected by absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity.

Apr 23 2026
6th Cir. 25-5733 Published

Eurton v. Thomas

The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for police officers who entered a home to conduct a welfare check, ruling that their actions were objectively reasonable under the emergency aid exception. The court held that the officers were shielded by qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could have believed immediate force was necessary to prevent harm given the dispatch warnings and the plaintiff's behavior.

Apr 23 2026
6th Cir. 24-4060 2-1

Driscoll v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Deputy Smiley's qualified immunity motion, holding that a reasonable officer could not have known that shooting an unarmed, non-dangerous man with evident diminished capacity violated clearly established law. The court concluded that the deputy's belief that the plaintiff was drinking gasoline was objectively unreasonable, rendering the use of deadly force unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Apr 22 2026
4th Cir. 24-7215 Panel Decision

PATRICK NICHOLS v. N. BUMGARNER, Montgomery County Police Officer Defendant –

The Fourth Circuit vacated a district court dismissal of a pro se excessive force complaint, ruling that the lower court applied an overly strict pleading standard and failed to include a second officer as a defendant. The appellate court held that the plaintiff's allegations, accepted as true, sufficiently stated a plausible claim under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness test.