Adam Brooks v. Clark County
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12510
9th Cir.2016Background
- Adam Brooks, a licensed bail enforcement agent, disrupted proceedings in Justice Lippis’s courtroom after arguing bail agents could arrest two defendants; the judge ordered him to leave.
- Judge Lippis asked courtroom marshal Jim Keener to escort Brooks out; Brooks alleges Keener shoved him through double doors, injuring his back.
- Brooks sued Keener under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (Fourth Amendment); complaint seeks damages and the case was at the motion-to-dismiss stage on appeal.
- Keener asserted absolute (quasi-judicial) immunity for acting on a judge’s instruction and alternatively claimed qualified immunity.
- The district court denied both immunity defenses; on appeal the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether (1) absolute immunity applied to a marshal who allegedly exceeded a judge’s order and (2) whether Keener was protected by qualified immunity.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of absolute immunity but reversed as to qualified immunity, dismissing Brooks’s claim on qualified immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courtroom marshals are entitled to absolute/quasi-judicial immunity when enforcing a judge’s order | Brooks: Keener acted under the judge’s directive and thus should be shielded from suit | Keener: acting pursuant to a judge’s instruction entitles him to absolute immunity | Court: No — absolute immunity not available where marshal allegedly exceeded judge’s command or used excessive force |
| Whether Keener’s alleged shove violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right (qualified immunity) | Brooks: shove was excessive force and unconstitutional | Keener: reasonable marshal could believe limited force to remove a disruptive person was lawful | Court: Keener entitled to qualified immunity — allegations did not show the illegality was "beyond debate" |
| Whether Mireles v. Waco compels absolute immunity for officers who carry out judge’s orders to seize | Brooks: Mireles limited to judge’s immunity; does not protect officers who exceed orders | Keener: Mireles suggests immunity extends to execution of judicial seizure orders | Court: Mireles does not justify absolute immunity for officers who act beyond constitutional bounds or beyond the judge’s command |
| Proper standard at motion-to-dismiss for excessive-force qualified immunity defenses | Brooks: factual allegations of force suffice to defeat dismissal | Keener: at motion stage, qualified immunity may be resolved if law not clearly established | Court: At motion-to-dismiss, if the alleged conduct is not clearly established as unconstitutional, qualified immunity warrants dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (recognition of absolute immunity in certain contexts)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (absolute immunity for certain official acts)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (functional test limits on judicial/quasi-judicial immunity)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (judge retains absolute immunity even if order to use force is erroneous)
- Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429 (burden on proponent to justify absolute immunity; functional analysis)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (distinguishing merits of excessive-force claim from qualified immunity inquiry)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity protects officers amid uncertain excessive-force boundaries)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (qualified immunity requires that unlawfulness be "beyond debate" in context)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims)