Cochran v. Gilliam
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18448
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Cochran leased a Kentucky home; landlords obtained a forcible detainer judgment and eviction notice in August–September 2008.
- Deputy sheriffs, including Gilliam brothers, executed the eviction on September 8, 2008, relying on the Warrant for Possession as authority.
- During the eviction, the deputies actively assisted the landlords in removing Cochran's personal property, not merely serving the notice.
- Gilliams allegedly purchased Cochran's TV from the landlords and the guns were turned over to the landlords’ associate; Cochran’s property was not returned.
- Cochran called 911 and state police during the removal; after the eviction, the landlords declared bankruptcy, hindering recovery.
- The district court denied qualified immunity on Cochran’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims; the Gilliams appealed seeking immunity defense relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Gilliams' active role violated the Fourth Amendment | Cochran (Cochran) | Gilliam brothers | Yes, Fourth Amendment violation established |
| Whether the right was clearly established at the time | Cochran's rights clearly established | Gilliams relied on advice/clear standard | Yes, right clearly established |
| Whether denial of qualified immunity for due process was correct | Cochran asserted due process violation | Qualified immunity not clearly addressed on due process | No need to reach due process; affirm denial on Fourth Amendment qualified immunity only |
Key Cases Cited
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 506 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1992) (police interference in private repossession can violate the Fourth Amendment)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (objective reasonableness of official conduct; clearly established law)
- Feathers v. Aey, 319 F.3d 843, 319 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2003) (contours of rights and reasonable officials; clearly established)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-prong test for qualified immunity (preceding Pearson))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (reaffirms prongs and allows order flexibility in qualified immunity)
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 506 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1992) (deputies’ active participation in repossession violates Fourth Amendment)
- Haverstick Enter., Inc. v. Fin. Fed. Credit, Inc., 32 F.3d 989 (6th Cir. 1994) (standing to keep peace may not shield active seizure actions)
- Flatford v. City of Monroe, 17 F.3d 162, 17 F.3d 162 (6th Cir. 1994) (active police involvement in private repossession forecloses immunity)
- Revis v. Meldrum, 489 F.3d 273, 489 F.3d 273 (6th Cir. 2007) (mere presence to keep peace does not render private repossession state action)
- United States v. Coleman, 628 F.2d 961, 628 F.2d 961 (6th Cir. 1980) (civil standby to observe lawful repossession may shield from liability)