Kirby Ingram v. Louis Kubik
30 F.4th 1241
| 11th Cir. | 2022Background
- Kirby Ingram, an Iraq War veteran with PTSD, cut his wrist during a mental-health crisis; deputies were dispatched for a welfare check and confiscated the knife, knowing he was unarmed.
- Ingram was calm, told deputies he would cooperate or be arrested, was told he was not under arrest, left the house, ran into a cotton field, then stopped and walked back with hands over his head while refusing medical treatment.
- Deputy Louis Kubik allegedly grabbed Ingram without warning and body-slammed him headfirst, causing severe cervical injuries requiring surgery.
- The complaint alleges Sheriff Blake Dorning maintained a de facto policy of not investigating or disciplining deputy misconduct (multiple prior incidents purportedly uninvestigated), fostering impunity.
- Procedural posture: District court dismissed claims for unlawful seizure, excessive force (qualified immunity), supervisory liability, and Title II ADA relief; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the unlawful-seizure and Title II claims, but reversed dismissal of the excessive-force and supervisory-liability claims and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of seizure (probable cause) | Ingram: no probable cause; deputies relied on his calming assurances. | Kubik: welfare call, recent self-harm, evasive conduct provided probable cause to seize. | Probable cause existed because of the suicide report, recent wrist-cutting, and evasive behavior; seizure lawful. |
| Excessive force / qualified immunity | Ingram: sudden headfirst body slam on a compliant, unarmed, non-resisting person was gratuitous and caused severe injury. | Kubik: force was nonlethal, immobilizing, and necessary to prevent danger or flight. | Complaint plausibly alleges an excessive-force violation and clearly established law; Kubik not entitled to qualified immunity at dismissal stage. |
| Supervisory liability (Dorning) | Ingram: Dorning’s custom of failing to investigate prior misconduct caused deputies to act with impunity, creating causal link. | Dorning: allegations show isolated events and lack sufficient causal connection; qualified immunity applies. | Allegations of multiple uninvestigated incidents and ratification plausibly establish causal connection and deliberate indifference; claim survives and qualified immunity is denied at this stage. |
| Title II vicarious liability (Sheriff Turner) | Ingram: Turner is liable for deputies’ discriminatory actions under Title II. | Turner: vicarious liability unavailable under Title II; Title II may not apply to police encounters. | Vicarious (respondeat superior) liability is unavailable under Title II; plaintiff must allege deliberate indifference/actual knowledge by an official, and his Title II claim was properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force reasonableness framework)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (limits on vicarious liability under funding-condition statutes)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (Title II adopts remedies of Rehabilitation Act/Title VI regime)
- Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152 (excessive force in mental-health/welfare-check context)
- Smith v. Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416 (gratuitous force against docile suspect establishes clear violation)
- Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324 (gratuitous force against nonresisting suspect denies immunity)
- Sebastian v. Ortiz, 918 F.3d 1301 (qualified-immunity standard at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Piazza v. Jefferson Cnty., 923 F.3d 947 (burden-shifting for qualified immunity and supervisory-liability pleading requirements)
- Jones v. City of Detroit, 20 F.4th 1117 (holding vicarious liability unavailable under Title II)
- Roberts v. Spielman, 643 F.3d 899 (probable-cause standard for mental-health seizures)