Jennifer L. Burbridge v. Marcus Biggins
2 F.4th 774
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- Drew and Jennifer Burbridge, documentary filmmakers, recorded nighttime protests in St. Louis after Officer Stockley’s acquittal. Police declared an unlawful assembly and issued a dispersal order that the Burbridges did not hear.
- Officers encircled the intersection, prevented the Burbridges from leaving, and instructed them to sit on the sidewalk; Drew identified himself as a journalist.
- An officer allegedly identified Drew (“That’s him”), then officers grabbed, placed him face down, twice pepper-sprayed him while he was compliant, struck him repeatedly (head, ribs, shoulder), zip-tied his hands, and he lost consciousness; he was arrested for failure to disperse.
- The Burbridges sued the City and several officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment excessive force, First Amendment retaliation, conspiracy) and under Missouri law (assault and battery). The district court granted summary judgment to the City on the conspiracy claim but denied summary judgment to the individual officers on excessive force, retaliation, conspiracy, and assault/battery.
- Officer Marcus Biggins appealed the denials on excessive force, First Amendment retaliation, and assault/battery; all officers appealed denial on the conspiracy claim. Drew died during the appeal and his wife was substituted as personal representative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Burbridge) | Defendant's Argument (Officers/Biggins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment — excessive force | Officers used significant force (pepper spray, blows) against a compliant Drew | Biggins: involvement was limited to kneeling on Drew’s legs; force was de minimis; video shows limited role | Denied qualified immunity; genuine fact disputes exist and video does not blatantly contradict plaintiff’s account; reasonable jury could find excessive force |
| First Amendment — retaliation | Drew filmed protests; force was motivated to chill protected activity | Biggins: if no excessive force, no adverse action; does not contest clearly established law | Denied qualified immunity; retaliation claim survives because excessive-force dispute remains |
| Missouri law — assault & battery / official immunity | Use of excessive force defeats immunity; evidence supports malicious intent | Biggins: force was discretionary and minimal; official immunity applies absent malice or actual intent to injure | Denied official immunity; factual dispute on actual intent to injure precludes summary judgment |
| §1983 conspiracy / intracorporate doctrine | Officers agreed to deprive Drew of rights; overt act caused injury | Appellants: intracorporate doctrine bars claim against City; argue no agreement; alternatively assert qualified immunity based on unsettled law | Affirmed dismissal of conspiracy claim as to City; appellate court declined to consider intracorporate argument as to officers raised first on appeal, so conspiracy claims against officers proceed to trial on the existing record |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoyland v. McMenomy, 869 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2017) (scope of interlocutory review of qualified immunity denials)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video that blatantly contradicts plaintiff’s version can foreclose a factual dispute)
- White v. Jackson, 865 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2017) (plaintiff need not identify each assailant personally to show an officer’s personal involvement in excessive force)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (discusses intracorporate conspiracy doctrine and agency principles)
- Twiehaus v. Adolf, 706 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. 1986) (Missouri official immunity unavailable where officer acted with actual intent to injure)
- S.L. ex rel. Lenderman v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dep’t Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 725 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2013) (elements required for a § 1983 conspiracy claim)