Hobbs v. City of Huntsville, 5:23-cv-00693

Kemontae Hobbs sued the City of Huntsville and two police officers, alleging violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to alleged excessive force during an arrest on May 30, 2021 at a Huntsville MAPCO gas station.
The incident began when store employees reported Hobbs for panhandling and refusing to leave, resulting in police response and attempted arrest.
During the arrest, a struggle ensued, during which officers attempted to restrain Hobbs; he was tased, physically subdued, and ultimately arrested for criminal trespass and other charges. Minor injuries were sustained but did not require medical treatment.
Plaintiff’s attorneys informed the court Hobbs was mentally and intellectually challenged, later supported by psychiatric evidence, leading to the appointment of a guardian ad litem.
The parties reached a proposed $15,000 settlement, with funds to be placed in a Special Needs Trust to ensure Hobbs’ continued eligibility for Social Security disability benefits.
The court reviewed evidence, heard from the guardian ad litem, and determined the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in Hobbs’ best interest, ordering its approval and final disposition of all claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983)	Hobbs argued officers used unlawful force in violation of his constitutional rights during arrest.	Officers asserted Hobbs resisted arrest and only reasonable force was used to subdue him.	Settlement approved; court found genuine disputes, but settlement was fair and just.
State Law Claims (negligence, assault, battery, false arrest)	Hobbs alleged torts arising from manner of arrest and subsequent detention.	Defendants denied liability, highlighting Hobbs’ resistance and absence of significant injury.	All state law claims resolved within comprehensive settlement.
Competency to Litigate	Argued that Hobbs’ mental and intellectual disabilities required protection and a guardian ad litem.	Defendants initially opposed, then consented after psychiatrist's statement.	Guardian ad litem appointed after psychiatric evidence provided.
Settlement Approval/Best Interest	Hobbs’ representatives and guardian ad litem argued the settlement was in his best interest, considering his needs.	Defendants agreed to settlement terms contingent on court approval.	Court approved, finding terms just and in Hobbs’ best interest.

Scannovino v. Florida Department of Corrections, 242 F.R.D. 662 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (discussing appointment requirements for a guardian ad litem for litigants with disabilities)
Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care Center, 323 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2003) (regarding the evidentiary requirements to support appointment of a guardian ad litem in federal court)