96 F.4th 1068
8th Cir.2024Background
- Michael Davitt, an elderly, homeless individual, participated in a temporary COVID-19 emergency housing program funded by Olmsted County, Minnesota, which provided him with a hotel room at a Super 8.
- Davitt signed an "Agreement for Hotel Guests" with the county, acknowledging that his stay could be ended at any time and was paid and arranged on his behalf by the county on a week-to-week basis.
- After the program ended and the county stopped paying, Super 8 repeatedly asked Davitt to leave or start paying for his room, but he refused, citing an executive order prohibiting evictions.
- Hotel staff sought police assistance; police, uncertain of Davitt's legal status, consulted government attorneys Spindler-Krage and Canan, who opined he was a hotel guest (not a tenant) and subject to removal.
- Davitt was removed by police, then sued the attorneys under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations; the attorneys asserted qualified immunity, and were granted summary judgment, which Davitt appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davitt had a clearly established right as a tenant | He was protected as a tenant under the governor's order | No legal authority established he was a tenant in these facts | No clearly established right; immunity applies |
| Whether the attorneys’ advice was objectively reasonable | Legal advice led to unconstitutional removal | Advice was reasonable given lack of clear precedent | Advice was objectively reasonable |
| Qualified immunity for legal advice to police | Qualified immunity should not apply | Qualified immunity shields objectively reasonable actions | Qualified immunity applies |
| Whether summary judgment was correctly granted | Disputed material facts preclude summary judgment | No genuine dispute of material fact | Summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (summary judgment standard)
- Jenkins v. Univ. of Minn., 838 F.3d 938 (qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity, prong selection)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (specificity needed for clearly established rights)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (standards for clearly established law)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (objective reasonableness for immunity)