Gray v. Cummings
917 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2019Background
- Judith Gray, a section 12 (involuntarily committed) patient with bipolar disorder, absconded from Athol Memorial Hospital and was located barefoot walking near the hospital.
- Officer Thomas Cummings encountered Gray, ordered her to return, followed her on foot, and after a brief physical struggle took her to the ground when she moved toward him.
- While Gray refused repeated orders to place her hands behind her back, Cummings warned he would tase her, then used his Taser in drive-stun mode for 4–6 seconds; Gray was then handcuffed and transported back to the hospital.
- Gray sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force against Cummings; failure-to-train against the Town), Title II of the ADA against the Town, and several state-law claims; district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims.
- On appeal, the First Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find excessive force under the Fourth Amendment but that Cummings was entitled to qualified immunity; the Town was entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 failure-to-train claim and the ADA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cummings used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Gray: single drive-stun Taser deployment was excessive given her mental illness and being subdued | Cummings: Tasing was reasonable to overcome resistance and secure custody | A jury could find excessive force, so triable issue exists in Gray's favor |
| Whether Cummings is entitled to qualified immunity for the Tasing | Gray: right to be free from tasing while not posing a threat was clearly established | Cummings: precedent allowed use of Taser against resisting, noncompliant subjects; no controlling analog | Held for Cummings: qualified immunity applies because no clearly established, closely analogous precedent barred his conduct in 2013 |
| Whether Town is liable under § 1983 for failure to train regarding interactions with mentally ill persons | Gray: inadequate training and expert evidence create triable issue of municipal deliberate indifference | Town: no pattern of similar constitutional violations and no evidence Town knew training caused violations | Held for Town: Gray failed to show deliberate indifference or pattern to impose municipal liability |
| Whether Title II of the ADA provides damages or injunctive relief against the Town for the on-the-street encounter | Gray: ADA applies to ad hoc police encounters; Town failed to accommodate her disability and/or misperceived symptoms as criminal conduct | Town: even assuming Title II applies, Gray cannot show line-officer knowledge or deliberate indifference sufficient for damages or a real and immediate threat for injunctive relief | Held for Town: Gray failed to show Cummings had particularized knowledge requiring accommodation or deliberate indifference; no relief available under Title II |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive force reasonableness framework)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Estate of Armstrong ex rel. Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d 892 (Taser use against mentally ill detainee; qualified immunity analysis)
- Parker v. Gerrish, 547 F.3d 1 (Taser use where suspect presented no significant active resistance)
- Ciolino v. Gikas, 861 F.3d 296 (need for measured approach before using significant force)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (municipal liability requires notice or pattern for failure-to-train)
- City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500 (need for closely analogous precedent to defeat qualified immunity)
- Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. 95 (standing for injunctive relief requires real and immediate threat)