J. Pearl Bussey-Morice v. Patrick Kennedy
657 F. App'x 909
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Preston Bussey, III died after Rockledge police officers restrained him pursuant to a Baker Act order; Plaintiff J. Pearl Bussey-Morice sued as personal representative.
- At the hospital Bussey was handcuffed, on his stomach, and violently resisting; Officer Kennedy joined others, moved from Bussey’s feet toward his head, used a pressure-point technique, put a knee on Bussey’s head, and placed a pillowcase over Bussey’s head to stop spitting.
- Bussey was injected with sedative/antipsychotic medication, strapped to a gurney, and later stopped breathing and died.
- District court granted summary judgment for most officers and the City; this appeal challenged qualified immunity for Kennedy and several officers (failure to intervene) and sovereign immunity for the City on a battery/wrongful-death claim.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo, considered qualified-immunity notice standards, and affirmed summary judgment: (1) officers entitled to qualified immunity because alleged violations were not clearly established, and (2) City entitled to sovereign immunity because plaintiff asserted malicious/bad-faith allegations below and did not preserve an alternative theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kennedy used excessive force violating a clearly established Fourth Amendment right | Kennedy’s pressure-point, knee to head, and pillowcase suffocated/constituted excessive, punitive force | Kennedy acted to restrain an actively resisting, spitting subject using trained, incremental techniques | Court: Not clearly established; qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether other officers’ failure to intervene violated a clearly established right | Officers failed to stop Kennedy’s unlawful force | No excessive-force violation by Kennedy, so no duty to intervene arises | Court: No clearly established violation; qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether the conduct was so obviously unlawful that no prior case law was required (obvious-clarity rule) | Kennedy’s actions were unlawfully outrageous and obvious to any reasonable officer | Actions were proportionate, incremental, and trained techniques; not beyond Fourth Amendment boundaries with obvious clarity | Court: Plaintiff failed to meet the high obvious-clarity standard |
| Whether City of Rockledge is barred by sovereign immunity on battery/wrongful-death claim | City liable on battery/wrongful-death; plaintiff’s complaint included alternative non-malicious theory | Plaintiff pleaded and argued malicious/bad-faith conduct below, invoking Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a); City therefore entitled to sovereign immunity | Court: Plaintiff waived alternative theory by not arguing it below and affirming sovereign immunity for City |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (articulates modern qualified-immunity framework)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (analysis of constitutional violation and clearly established right)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2002) (use of force for punishment was unlawful)
- Fils v. City of Aventura, 647 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2011) (two methods for determining whether law is clearly established)
- Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919 (11th Cir. 2000) (obvious-clarity exception to case-specific notice requirement)