Eric Mueller v. City of Boise
700 F.3d 1180
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Muellers challenge law enforcement actions in a 2002 emergency-room wake regarding Taige Mueller, alleging violation of constitutional rights.
- Detective Rogers and officers determined Taige faced imminent danger and removed Corissa from Taige during emergency medical treatment, with Taige later placed in shelter care.
- Idaho law allowed shelter care without a court order in emergencies to prevent serious physical injury, cited as support for the officers’ actions.
- The district court granted qualified-immunity summary judgment for the officers and dismissed claims against St. Luke’s; trial addressed Dr. Macdonald’s liability and Dr. Rosen’s testimony.
- The Muellers proceeded to trial; a jury found Dr. Macdonald did not knowingly commit false neglect and the battery claim against him failed, while the government defendants and hospital were analyzed for due-process and Fourteenth/Fourth Amendment issues.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed on appeal, upholding qualified immunity, Fourth Amendment improprieties, evidentiary rulings, and other challenged rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for officers | Muellers contend officers violated rights; lack of clearly established law. | Rogers and officers acted reasonably under emergency medical context and on on-scene assessment. | Entitled to qualified immunity |
| Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest vs. state interests | Parents have strong liberty interest; removal without hearing improper absent imminent danger. | Emergency context justifies action without prior hearing to protect child. | Right balanced; actions reasonable under imminent danger |
| Imminent danger determination and pre-hearing seizure | No clearly established rule allowed seizure without hearing. | Emergency-room context and medical opinions supported imminent danger finding. | No clearly established law required prior judicial hearing in 2002; seizure sustained |
| Admissibility of Dr. Rosen’s testimony under Rule 702 | Testimony based on clinical instinct is unreliable and improper. | Clinical instinct is permissible; Rosen’s testimony aided jury in evaluating medical risk. | Admissible; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Dismissal of St. Luke’s claims and leave to amend | St. Luke’s could be liable under §1983 with proper amendments. | Amendment would be futile; no actionable state-action policy. | affirmed dismissal without leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity standard; clearly established right in context)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (immunity protects officials not clearly violating rights)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (objective reasonableness for qualified-immunity inquiry)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (context-specific inquiry for qualified immunity)
- Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (emergency exception to due-process in guardianship context)
- Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S. Ct. 989 (2012) (reasons on-scene perspective and quick judgments)
- Trevino v. Gates, 9th Cir. 1996 (9th Cir. 1996) (decision on reasonableness in split-second judgments)
- Caldwell v. LeFaver, 928 F.2d 331 (9th Cir. 1991) (imminent danger exception to notice and hearing)
- Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2010) (reliability of expert testimony under Rule 702)