Jamila Russell v. Superior Court of the Virgin I
905 F.3d 239
3rd Cir.2018Background
- In July 2013 Jamila Russell asked Virgin Islands Superior Court marshals to help enforce a PINS (Person in Need of Supervision) order against her then-15-year-old son L.T.; marshals, including Deputy Christopher Richardson, went to the home.
- The complaint alleges L.T. was unarmed, mostly undressed, and relaxing in his bedroom when Richardson shot him as L.T. attempted to run past the marshals, rendering L.T. a quadriplegic.
- Russell and L.T. sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force) and territorial tort law (negligence, gross negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress), and sued the Superior Court for negligence and vicarious liability.
- Richardson and the Superior Court moved to dismiss asserting quasi-judicial (absolute) immunity, qualified immunity, and sovereign immunity under the Revised Organic Act and the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act (VITCA); the District Court denied those immunities and allowed limited discovery on qualified immunity.
- On interlocutory appeal the Third Circuit considered (1) whether quasi-judicial immunity shields an officer for how he enforces a court order, (2) whether qualified immunity applies, and (3) whether the territorial sovereign immunity defenses were properly denied.
- The Third Circuit affirmed denial of quasi-judicial immunity and qualified immunity at this stage, affirmed denial of sovereign immunity in most respects, but held the gross-negligence claim must be dismissed because VITCA does not waive immunity for gross negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a marshal is entitled to quasi-judicial (absolute) immunity for using force while enforcing a court order | Russell: suit challenges conduct (excessive force) beyond any authority conferred by the PINS order; thus no absolute immunity | Richardson/Superior Court: marshals executing court orders are immune from suit for acts taken at a judge's direction | Court: Quasi-judicial immunity covers acts authorized by the court order but does not extend to the manner of execution; immunity denied for shooting claim |
| Whether Richardson is entitled to qualified immunity on § 1983 excessive-force claim | Russell: complaint alleges facts (unarmed teen shot while fleeing) that state a Garner violation; right was clearly established | Richardson: complaint lacks particularized facts to frame a qualified-immunity defense; should be dismissed or require more definite statement | Court: Facts as pleaded could show violation of clearly established Garner rule; qualified immunity not resolved on motion to dismiss and discovery permitted |
| Whether the Territory and Superior Court are protected by sovereign immunity under the Revised Organic Act and whether plaintiffs complied with VITCA prerequisites | Russell: timely notice of intent and a timely claim (complaint) substantially complied with VITCA requirements | Defendants: notice and claim were defective and insufficient; sovereign immunity therefore not waived | Court: Collateral-order review proper; notice and claim substantially complied with VITCA so most tort claims proceed; sovereign immunity denial affirmed except gross-negligence claim must be dismissed (VITCA preserves immunity for gross negligence) |
| Whether gross-negligence claim can proceed against the Territory | Russell: asserted gross negligence in complaint | Defendants: VITCA preserves immunity for gross negligence; claim not waived | Court: VITCA bars waiver for injuries caused by gross negligence; gross-negligence claim must be dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (Supreme Court) (historical statement of judicial immunity)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court) (absolute immunity for prosecutors and functional approach)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (Supreme Court) (functional analysis for extending absolute immunity)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (Supreme Court) (limits of judicial immunity for nonjudicial acts)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court) (deadly-force standard for fleeing suspects)
- Martin v. Board of County Commissioners, 909 F.2d 402 (10th Cir.) (officers not absolutely immune for excessive force in executing orders)
- Richman v. Sheahan, 270 F.3d 430 (7th Cir.) (quasi-judicial immunity limited to implementing orders, not manner of execution)
- Brooks v. Clark County, 828 F.3d 910 (9th Cir.) (no absolute immunity where officer acts beyond judge's instructions)
- Antonine v. Byers & Anderson, 508 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court) (limits to extending judicial-type immunities)