Brandon Raub v. Michael Campbell, 785 F.3d 876

Background

In August 2012 Brandon Raub posted ominous, conspiracy-oriented and potentially threatening statements on Facebook; former Marines reported concerns to the FBI.
FBI and local officers interviewed Raub at his home; he admitted posting the messages, was evasive about intentions, exhibited rapid mood swings, and made statements like “we will all see very soon.”
Detective Paris consulted Michael Campbell, a certified mental-health prescreener, who—after speaking with officers, reviewing an email from a former Marine, speaking briefly with Raub in a jail intake area, and speaking to Raub’s mother—concluded Raub might be psychotic and petitioned a magistrate for a temporary detention order.
A magistrate granted the temporary detention order; Raub was involuntarily hospitalized for seven days before a court ordered his release.
Raub sued Campbell under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure) and First Amendment (retaliation for protected speech) violations and sought damages and injunctive relief.
The district court granted summary judgment for Campbell on qualified immunity grounds; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Campbell violated the Fourth Amendment by recommending seizure and petitioning for detention without probable cause	Raub: No probable cause; Campbell relied on officer reports, interviewed him in jail while handcuffed/shirtless, and improperly relied on Facebook posts	Campbell: He reasonably relied on officer observations, the former Marines’ report, his own evaluation, and state law; qualified immunity applies	Court: Did not decide actual Fourth Amendment violation; held Campbell entitled to qualified immunity because unlawfulness was not clearly established
Whether Campbell violated the First Amendment by basing detention on Raub’s protected political/speech content	Raub: Campbell retaliated because of Raub’s political/conspiratorial statements	Campbell: Decision was based on totality of facts (demeanor, posts, third-party report, evaluation), not speech alone	Court: Raub failed to show but-for causation; First Amendment claim fails; qualified immunity applies
Whether qualified immunity protects Campbell for recommending detention and petitioning the court	Raub: Professional standards required further pre-detention investigation and different procedures	Campbell: His conduct was objectively reasonable under then-existing law and precedent	Court: Qualified immunity applies—officials are protected unless law clearly proscribed the conduct; prior cases lacked comparable clear prohibition
Whether injunctive relief was appropriate	Raub: Sought injunction preventing future seizures/retaliation	Campbell: No immediate threat; injunction is extraordinary remedy	Court: Denied—Raub failed to show a real and immediate threat of future injury; equitable factors not met

Key Cases Cited

Gooden v. Howard Cnty., 954 F.2d 960 (4th Cir. 1992) (qualified immunity proper where officers relied on multiple reports and observations in mental-health seizure)
S.P. v. City of Takoma Park, Md., 134 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 1998) (reasonableness of seizure where officers had opportunity to observe and interview the subject)
Bailey v. Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731 (4th Cir. 2003) (denying qualified immunity where detention rested only on a 911 report and officers’ subsequent forceful conduct)
Cloaninger ex rel. Estate of Cloaninger v. McDevitt, 555 F.3d 324 (4th Cir. 2009) (probable cause where officers had prior reports, knowledge of suicide threats, and belief the subject had firearms)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-prong framework and permissive sequencing of inquiries)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (scope of qualified immunity protecting reasonable official action)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (clarity requirement: conduct must be plainly unlawful in the specific situation)
Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991) (qualified immunity to be decided early where possible)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity limits damages liability)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injunctive relief requires a real and immediate threat of future injury)