City of Atlanta v. Shavers
326 Ga. App. 95
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On July 1, 2010, Harry Shavers entered a Texaco Food Mart operated by Razia Group, found two folded items he believed to be money orders, and discussed them with store employees and customers.
- Store employee Kamrul Islam demanded the items, called 911, and told the dispatcher and Officer Governor Henderson that Shavers had taken $700 and ran from the store; surveillance video showed Shavers did not take the items.
- Shavers was stopped by multiple police cars while returning home, detained at gunpoint, and arrested by Officer Henderson despite the store video and other officers’ statements that Shavers had not stolen anything; Henderson charged Shavers with felony theft and transported him to jail; charges were later dismissed.
- Shavers sued Henderson and Razia Group for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution; Henderson moved for summary judgment asserting official (qualified) immunity, which the trial court denied on the ground that the record permitted a jury inference of actual malice.
- Henderson appealed the denial of summary judgment; the Court of Appeals considered (1) whether the denial was immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine and (2) whether the denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of immunity-based summary judgment is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine | Shavers: the existence of factual disputes (possible actual malice) means the issue is not a conclusive legal determination and thus not immediately appealable | Henderson: denial of immunity is immediately appealable as a collateral order when it constitutes a conclusive determination that immunity does not apply | Court: Denial was a conclusive determination permitting interlocutory appeal; Shavers’ motion to dismiss the appeal denied |
| Whether Henderson was entitled to qualified (official) immunity as a matter of law | Shavers: factual record permits a jury to infer actual malice (deliberate intent to do wrong) from Henderson’s actions and statements | Henderson: immunity bars suit; actual malice cannot be inferred and entitlement to immunity should have been decided as a legal matter | Court: Viewed record in plaintiff’s favor, a jury could infer actual malice from Henderson’s knowledge and conduct; summary judgment on immunity was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Watkins v. Latif, 323 Ga. App. 306 (discusses limits on inferring malice and related qualified-immunity principles)
- Bd. of Regents v. Canas, 295 Ga. App. 505 (collateral-order appealability for immunity determinations)
- Cameron v. Lang, 274 Ga. 122 (definition and standards for official/qualified immunity)
- Merrow v. Hawkins, 266 Ga. 390 (distinguishing implied malice/recklessness from actual malice)