Marcella Holloman v. Paul Markowski
661 F. App'x 797
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Maurice Johnson, a resident with diagnosed bipolar disorder, destroyed property at his mother Marcella Holloman’s house and became physically aggressive during a birthday gathering.
- Holloman called 911, told officers Johnson was mentally ill, asked them not to shoot and suggested using a Taser.
- Officers Markowski and Bragg arrived, opened a back door, attempted to restrain Johnson, and were engaged in a brief physical struggle in which Johnson pinned Officer Markowski and fought Officer Bragg.
- Officer Bragg fired at least two shots during the struggle; Johnson was wounded and later died.
- Holloman sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (1) Monell municipal liability for failure to train/supervise and a pattern of not disciplining officers, and (2) individual excessive force claims against the officers.
- The district court entered judgment for defendants; the Fourth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal liability under Monell for failure to train/supervise and a practice of not disciplining | Holloman: City had a pattern of shootings and failed to train/supervise or discipline officers regarding mentally ill suspects | City: Allegations are speculative; plaintiff failed to plead widespread practice or specific failures to discipline or train causing constitutional violations | Dismissal affirmed — allegations too speculative, no facts showing widespread, persistent pattern or deliberate indifference |
| Excessive force/Qualified immunity for officers’ use of lethal force | Holloman: Officers used constitutionally excessive force in shooting an unarmed, mentally ill man | Officers: Use of force was objectively reasonable given property destruction, physical attack on officers, and active resistance | Summary judgment for officers affirmed — no clearly established precedent showing force was unlawful in these circumstances |
| Whether precedent (e.g., Clem) clearly established unlawfulness of shooting an unarmed but resisting suspect | Holloman: Clem and related decisions show shooting an unarmed, mentally disabled person can be excessive force | Officers: Clem is materially different (no physical attack on officers, no property destruction); no controlling precedent on these facts | Court: No case placed the conduct beyond debate; Clem distinguished and did not clearly establish unlawfulness |
| Pleading standard for Monell claim by pro se plaintiff | Holloman: Complaint should be liberally construed; factual allegations suffice to state a claim | City: Twombly/Twombly plausibility standard applies; pro se status does not excuse pleading requirements | Court: Applied plausibility standard (liberally construe pro se pleadings) and found Monell claim implausible |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires a policy or custom causing constitutional violation)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive force judged by Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step; courts may address clearly established prong first)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (clearly established inquiry depends on specific context)
- Clem v. Corbeau, 284 F.3d 543 (Fourth Circuit denied summary judgment where officer shot an unarmed, confused man — distinguished here)
- Owens v. Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office, 767 F.3d 379 (Monell requires persistent widespread practice and deliberate indifference)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (existing precedent must place the constitutional question beyond debate)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Estate of Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d 892 (factors for reasonableness: severity of crime, immediate threat, resistance to arrest)