Meyers v. Baltimore County, 981 F. Supp. 2d 422

Ryan Meyers died in 2007 after repeated tasings during an arrest by Baltimore County police, including Officer Mee.
In 2010 Meyers's parents and his brother, as personal representative, sued Baltimore County and three officers for federal and Maryland-law claims.
Amended Complaint asserts Count III under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment excessive force) and Count V under Maryland Articles 24 and 26 (Maryland constitutional).
Judge Legg granted summary judgment in 2011 for all defendants, including qualified immunity for Mee, which the Fourth Circuit later reversed as to Mee and remanded.
On remand, Mee seeks to apply the same immunity framework to Count III and Count V; plaintiffs argue immunity does not apply to the Maryland claim and that law-of-the-case/mandate arguments do not bar that position.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether qualified immunity applies to Maryland constitutional claim (Count V).	Maryland claim analyzed under same standard; immunity not available for Count V.	Count V should follow the same analysis as Count III per law of the case and waiver.	Qualified immunity does not bar Count V; Maryland claim is not governed by the federal immunity framework.
Whether the mand ate rule/law of the case bars immun ity argument for Count III on remand.	The Fourth Circuit did not foreclose distinct state-law analysis; waiver not applicable.	Law-of-the-case/mandate rule precludes raising immun ity for Count III.	Mandate rule does not bar raising qualified immunity for Count III; law of the case does not control the remand analysis.
Whether plaintiffs’ waiver arguments affect the Maryland claim analysis.	Plaintiffs did not waive right to argue Maryland claim immunity; standard remains.	Waiver/waived issues limit arguments on remand.	Waiver does not preclude arguing that qualified immunity does not apply to Count V.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (standard of objective reasonableness for excessive force)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified immunity analysis; can be in either order)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (factors governing qualified immunity: reasonable belief of legality)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (permits addressing prongs in different order)
Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235 (2012) (clearly established standard and qualified immunity evaluation)
Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2093 (2012) (clarifies clearly established inquiry in qualified immunity)
Okwa v. Harper, 360 Md. 161 (2000) (Maryland constitutional claims construed with federal analogs; state immunity considerations)
Meyers v. Baltimore Cnty., Md., 713 F.3d 723 (4th Cir. 2013) (Fourth Circuit remand and immunity discussions; dictates scope on remand)
United States v. Hudson, 673 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2012) (law-of-the-case/waiver principles in Fourth Circuit)