37 F.4th 506
8th Cir.2022Background
- Martinez, an immigration attorney, coordinated the reunification of a child (N.B.M.) with his detained mother at an ICE facility after the mother's arrest.
- ICE scheduled a 3:30 a.m. meeting in the facility parking lot; Martinez, the child’s custodian (Diaz Inestroza), and a documentary crew arrived but no ICE van was present.
- ICE officers Sasse and Chase directed that Diaz Inestroza and the child come inside; Chase grabbed Diaz Inestroza (carrying the child) and pushed them into the facility.
- Martinez attempted to follow; Chase allegedly backed into her and, with Sasse, pushed her back and locked the doors, causing Martinez to fall and suffer serious injuries.
- Martinez filed a Bivens claim alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment; the district court denied Sasse’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that it was not clearly established in June 2018 that a push to repel someone from a facility constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure, and remanded with instructions to dismiss Martinez’s Fourth Amendment claim against Sasse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sasse’s push constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure | Martinez: any intentional physical force that restrains liberty, even briefly, is a seizure | Sasse: force used solely to repel or prevent entry is not a seizure under the Fourth Amendment | Court: Not clearly established that a push to repel is a seizure as of June 2018; resolution favors defendant |
| Whether qualified immunity is defeated because the law was clearly established | Martinez: precedent (Atkinson, Acevedo) shows force causing brief immobilization is a seizure | Sasse: controlling authority and consensus did not clearly establish that repelling force equals a seizure | Court: No robust consensus or controlling precedent clearly establishing the rule; qualified immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of a damages remedy for certain federal constitutional violations)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (defining seizure as restraint by physical force or show of authority)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (qualified-immunity framework; clearly established standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified-immunity procedural framework)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (objective immunity standard for government officials)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clarifying contours of "clearly established" law)
- Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989 (holding that force that momentarily immobilizes can effect a seizure; decided after the incident)
- Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, 709 F.3d 1201 (8th Cir.) (holding a "bull rush" that led to handcuffing was a seizure)
- Acevedo v. Canterbury, 457 F.3d 721 (7th Cir.) (holding a brief immobilizing blow constituted a seizure)
- Meggs v. City of Berkeley, [citation="246 F. App'x 402"] (9th Cir.) (holding force used to repel protesters from a line was not analyzed as a Fourth Amendment seizure)
- Quraishi v. St. Charles County, 986 F.3d 831 (8th Cir.) (holding dispersal by force did not clearly amount to a seizure)
- L.G. ex rel. M.G. v. Columbia Pub. Schs., 990 F.3d 1145 (8th Cir.) (discussing need for a robust consensus to clearly establish law)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (interlocutory appeal of qualified-immunity denials permitted)