Punsky v. City of Portland, 54 F.4th 62

Background

On Dec. 31, 2017 Portland police responded to a domestic incident at Punsky’s home; dispatch warned occupants had been drinking, were wrestling, and the address was flagged for firearms.
Officers removed Punsky (6'3", ~360 lbs.) from the house after he resisted commands, threatened officers, and was identified as the primary aggressor; he was wearing socks, shorts, and a long-sleeve shirt in below-freezing weather.
Officers and a paramedic repeatedly offered Punsky shoes and medical transport; he repeatedly refused and stated he was fine and did not care about the cold; the paramedic assessed him as competent and oriented.
Officers waited for an arrest wagon rather than a cruiser due to safety concerns, left Punsky standing outside in socks for about 26 minutes while they completed investigative tasks, then arrested and transported him to the hospital and jail; he later suffered frostbite to his feet.
Punsky sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment excessive force/unreasonable seizure and supervisory liability) and state tort/MCRA claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds and held state-law immunity applied (plaintiff had not opposed that argument).
The First Circuit affirmed: it held officers were entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances and rejected the untimely challenge to state-law immunity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leaving Punsky barefoot in freezing weather violated the Fourth Amendment	Punsky: leaving him standing barefoot for ~26 minutes constituted unreasonable seizure/excessive force causing serious injury	Officers: their conduct was objectively reasonable given safety concerns, refusal of offers of shoes, and paramedic assessment	Held: No clearly established constitutional violation; officers entitled to qualified immunity
Whether the law was clearly established so that a reasonable officer would know the conduct was unlawful	Punsky: precedent clearly prohibits exposing detainees to foreseeable risk of harm and would place officers on notice	Officers: facts here (offers of shoes, threats, firearms in house, paramedic clearance) distinguish prior cases and do not put officers on notice	Held: Not clearly established under the specific facts; qualified immunity applies
Whether the district court improperly resolved factual disputes on summary judgment	Punsky: court resolved disputed facts in officers’ favor (e.g., offers of footwear, his competence)	Officers: bodycam and paramedic evidence corroborate offers, assessment, and safety justification	Held: No reversible error — record viewed in plaintiff's favor still supports reasonableness conclusion
Whether state tort claims survive despite defendants’ asserted discretionary-act immunity	Punsky: twenty-six minutes in freezing temps exceeded discretionary function and should not be immune	Officers/City: discretionary-function immunity applies; plaintiff failed to oppose this argument in district court	Held: Plaintiff waived merits challenge by failing to litigate it below; summary judgment for defendants affirmed

Key Cases Cited

District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (qualified immunity requires unlawfulness to be clearly established)
White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73 (2017) (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or knowing violators)
Estate of Rahim v. Doe, 51 F.4th 402 (1st Cir. 2022) (officers get "breathing room" when responding to dangerous, rapidly evolving situations)
Rocket Learning, Inc. v. Rivera-Sánchez, 715 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (framework for determining whether facts make out a constitutional violation)
Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015) (clarity-of-law standard for qualified immunity)
Stamps v. Town of Framingham, 813 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2016) (a clearly established right is one every reasonable official would understand)
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (courts may address qualified immunity prongs in any order)