52 F.4th 734
8th Cir.2022Background:
- Appeal from denial of motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity after tear-gas deployment at 2017 St. Louis protests.
- Megan Green alleges an SLMPD armored vehicle (the BEAR) deployed tear gas toward her as she left a synagogue and walked to her car; she claims First Amendment retaliation and suffered eye/breathing injuries.
- During discovery the City identified four SWAT officers (Sommer, Calabro, Cora, Blackmon) as being on the BEAR and eight other SWAT officers as having no confirmed alibi; plaintiff could not identify which of the eight were on the BEAR.
- District court denied qualified immunity for the four identified officers and denied dismissal for the eight unconfirmed officers, allowing further discovery; conspiracy and state-law claims also survived.
- Eighth Circuit: accepts district court facts for qualified immunity review, affirms denial as to the four named officers, reverses denial as to the eight unconfirmed officers, and reverses denial of the conspiracy claim; affirms denial of official immunity for state-law claims against identified officers.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for four identified officers | Green: named four officers on BEAR who tear-gassed her in retaliation for protest activity | Officers: deployment was reasonable and justified (probable cause/dispersion) | Denied qualified immunity; plausible First Amendment retaliation claim survives |
| Qualified immunity for eight unconfirmed officers | Green: SWAT team members on duty; lack of identification due to City discovery failures; should proceed | Officers: insufficient facts tying them to conduct; qualified immunity requires dismissal | Reversed denial; complaint fails to plausibly allege personal involvement; dismissed |
| Conspiracy claim under §1983 / intracorporate doctrine | Green: officers conspired to deprive her rights | Officers: intracorporate conspiracy doctrine bars claim; qualified immunity | Reversed denial; conspiracy claim dismissed because not clearly established that intra-department conspiracy actionable in 2017 |
| State-law official immunity (assault/battery/IIED) | Green: acts were discretionary but done with malice/bad faith | Officers: official immunity bars discretionary acts absent malice | Denial affirmed for identified officers; factual allegations of conscious wrongdoing suffice at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Quraishi v. St. Charles Cnty. Mo., 986 F.3d 831 (tear gas used against law‑abiding protestors supports retaliation claim)
- Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594 (elements of First Amendment retaliation)
- Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870 (pepper‑spray chills a person of ordinary firmness)
- Garcia v. City of Trenton, 348 F.3d 726 (retaliation need not have large effect to be actionable)
- Faulk v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 30 F.4th 739 (intracorporate conspiracy and limited discovery on qualified immunity)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Iqbal pleading standard for plausible claims)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (qualified immunity shields from suit, not just liability)
- Wilson v. Northcutt, 441 F.3d 586 (individualized liability under §1983)
- Reasonover v. St. Louis Cnty., Mo., 447 F.3d 569 (Missouri official immunity doctrine)