James Solomon v. Deputy U.S. Marshal Thomas
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13167
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Solomon, convicted for violating supervised release, wrote a threatening letter about a federal judge, absconded, was captured and returned to custody; marshals transported him from Oklahoma City to Fort Smith, including Marshal Susan Jones and Marshal Cory Thomas.
- During transport to Fort Smith Solomon alleges marshals showed him his letter and threatened he would "pay" for writing it; Solomon alleges Thomas struck him in the lower body during that period.
- Solomon was later detained at Benton County Criminal Detention Center (BCCDC) and alleges he was given a "blanket party" (a group beating) by BCCDC deputies who said they were doing it "for the marshals."
- Solomon filed a pro se Bivens suit alleging retaliation, conspiracy, and excessive force against Jones and Thomas; Jones moved for dismissal/summary judgment and invoked qualified immunity, submitting the Spellman Declaration that Jones and Thomas did not decide housing at BCCDC and did not transport Solomon from Fort Smith to BCCDC.
- The district court converted the motions to summary judgment, granted summary judgment on claims that the marshals sent Solomon to BCCDC, but denied qualified immunity on retaliation and conspiracy claims (and accepted Thomas conceded excessive-force dismissal was premature). The Eighth Circuit affirms denial of qualified immunity on the retaliation and conspiracy claims and declines to grant remand for limited discovery now.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether facts plead a First Amendment retaliation claim | Solomon: threats, Thomas's blow, and later blanket party were retaliation for his letter | Jones/Thomas: no causal link; threats could be unrelated (e.g., punishment for absconding); insufficient facts | Court: Facts and reasonable inferences suffice to survive summary judgment; denial of qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether Jones conspired with BCCDC deputies to use excessive force | Solomon: marshal threatened him and deputies admitted they acted at marshals' request, permitting inference of agreement | Jones: no specific facts showing an agreement or "meeting of the minds"; speculation | Court: Circumstantial evidence (threat + deputies' admission) permits reasonable jury inference; denial of qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether Spellman Declaration defeats all claims against Jones and Thomas | Defendants: Spellman shows they didn't order housing or transport to BCCDC, negating causal role | Solomon: claims are not limited to Fort Smith→BCCDC leg; threats and blow occurred earlier during Oklahoma City→Fort Smith transport | Court: Spellman supports dismissal of claims about assignment/transport to BCCDC, but does not defeat claims premised on earlier threats/blow and deputies' statements |
| Whether limited discovery / remand required for Thomas's excessive-force claim | Solomon: (implicit) proceed on pleadings; district court already denied dismissal | Thomas: requests remand/limited discovery to develop qualified immunity defense on excessive-force claim | Court: Declines to order discovery or remand now; leaves such procedural requests to district court in further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (standards on pleading and inference limits)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (creates implied damages remedy against federal officials for constitutional violations)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity interlocutory appeal principles)
- Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2010) (elements of retaliation claim)
- Jones v. McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158 (8th Cir. 2012) (review scope in qualified immunity interlocutory appeals)
- Brown v. Fortner, 518 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2008) (qualified-immunity interlocutory jurisdiction and review scope)
- Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2004) (liberal construction of pro se complaints)