Lionel Dorsey v. Michael Sokoloff, 19-1671

Incident: Officer Michael Sokoloff repeatedly deployed a taser on DeOntre Dorsey, who was unarmed, brought to the ground, restrained by other officers, stopped breathing at the scene, and remained in a semi‑vegetative state until his death ~9 months later.
Plaintiffs (Dorsey family and others) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and interference with medical treatment, plus state claims.
Sokoloff moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity, arguing no constitutional violation and that any violation was not clearly established.
The district court denied summary judgment, concluding that, viewed in the plaintiffs’ favor, Sokoloff violated DeOntre’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from gratuitous, disproportionate force while unarmed and secured.
On appeal the Fourth Circuit reviewed only the narrow legal question appropriate to interlocutory review of qualified immunity denials and affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sokoloff’s repeated taser use violated the Fourth Amendment (excessive force)	Repeated taser shocks on an unarmed, restrained, non‑resisting person is excessive and unreasonable	Use was justified or not constitutionally excessive under the circumstances	Court: A reasonable jury could find the taser use violated the Fourth Amendment (excessive force)
Whether the right was clearly established at the time	Prior law put officers on notice that repeated taser shocks against secured, unarmed, non‑resisting persons are unconstitutional	No controlling clearly established precedent put Sokoloff on notice his conduct was unlawful	Court: Clearly established — precedent (e.g., Meyers) supports that such conduct is unconstitutional
Whether denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable	Plaintiffs sought to proceed; appellate jurisdiction contested	Appellees previously moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; court reviewed appealability	Court: Denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is a collateral order subject to immediate appellate review; review limited to the legal question given the facts as the district court framed them

Williams v. Strickland, 917 F.3d 763 (4th Cir. 2019) (denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity is collateral order reviewable on appeal under the narrow legal question standard)
Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2008) (framework limiting appellate review of qualified immunity denials to the legal question taking the district court’s view of the facts)
Meyers v. Balt. Cnty., 713 F.3d 723 (4th Cir. 2013) (repeated taser shocks on an individual who is unarmed, on the ground, restrained, and not resisting constitute excessive force)
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949) (doctrine governing appealability of certain interlocutory orders)