Heather De Mian v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 86 F.4th 1179

On Sept. 29, 2017, protesters gathered outside Busch Stadium after an officer’s acquittal; an altercation occurred as police escorted arrestees away.
Heather De Mian, a journalist who livestreams protests from a powered wheelchair, followed and filmed the officers and loudly criticized the use of a taser.
Officer William Olsten had a heated exchange with protester Amir Brandy and then deployed pepper spray into the crowd; De Mian was more than 20 feet away and off to his side.
Videos do not clearly show whether De Mian was hit; she later shouted that there was no dispersal order and asked why she was sprayed.
De Mian sued Olsten, Commissioner Hayden, and the City under § 1983 for First Amendment (retaliation) and Fourth Amendment violations, plus municipal and state-law claims; the district court granted Olsten qualified immunity, dismissed remaining federal claims, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed: no genuine dispute that Olsten singled out De Mian for retaliatory spraying, so qualified immunity and summary judgment for defendants were proper; municipal liability and state claims accordingly failed or were not retained.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Olsten retaliated against De Mian in violation of the First Amendment	De Mian contends she was filmed and protesting, and Olsten pepper sprayed her in retaliation for that protected speech	Olsten argues he did not single her out; he sprayed the crowd in response to the confrontation with Brandy and did not target De Mian	No. No evidence Olsten knew of or targeted De Mian; causal link lacking; qualified immunity affirmed
Whether the City is liable under Monell for Olsten’s conduct	City liable if Olsten committed a constitutional violation and it had a relevant policy/custom	City argues no underlying constitutional violation by Olsten, so no municipal liability	No. Municipal claim fails because there was no constitutional violation by an employee
Whether the district court abused discretion by dismissing state-law claims after resolving federal claims	De Mian asks for reinstatement of state claims if federal claims are reinstated	Defendants argue federal claims fail, so supplemental jurisdiction dismissal was proper	No abuse of discretion: federal claims fail, so district court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction

Aldridge v. City of St. Louis, 75 F.4th 895 (8th Cir. 2023) (affirming qualified immunity where plaintiffs were not singled out when officers sprayed crowd)
Brandy v. City of St. Louis, 75 F.4th 908 (8th Cir. 2023) (sets elements for First Amendment retaliation and distinguishes directed conduct)
Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2014) (pepper-spray can chill a person of ordinary firmness; causation may be taken from jury only if not free from doubt)
Quraishi v. St. Charles Cnty., 986 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2021) (denial of qualified immunity where officers tear-gassed reporters but not others)
Whitney v. City of St. Louis, 887 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2018) (no municipal liability absent an underlying constitutional violation)
Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009) (district courts have discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction)
Goffin v. Ashcraft, 977 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2020) (summary judgment standard and drawing reasonable inferences for nonmoving party)