Schueller v. Cordrey
N14C-10-201 EMD
| Del. Super. Ct. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- February 19, 2013: Delaware State Trooper Brett Cordrey shot Keith Schueller; Schueller sued Cordrey individually and in his official capacity and sued the State/Department under respondeat superior.
- Claims pleaded: battery, negligence, gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a request to recognize a constitutional excessive-force cause of action under Article I, §6 of the Delaware Constitution.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on negligence and on the proposed constitutional excessive-force claim; Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on gross negligence and the constitutional claim.
- At the February 3, 2017 pretrial conference the court heard argument and permitted supplemental briefing on whether to create a new Bivens-style cause of action under Article I, §6.
- The court found genuine factual disputes precluded summary judgment for Plaintiff on gross negligence and excessive-force, and that Plaintiff conceded negligence summary judgment was appropriate.
- The court declined to create a new damages cause of action under Article I, §6, applying Bivens principles and finding alternative remedies, separation-of-powers concerns, and potential fiscal impact favored leaving any new cause of action to the legislature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should recognize a new private cause of action for excessive force under Article I, §6 (Bivens-style) | Schueller urged the court to imply a constitutional damages remedy under Article I, §6 for excessive force | Defendants opposed creating a new cause of action, citing separation-of-powers, alternative remedies, and fiscal concerns | Court refused to extend Bivens liability to Article I, §6 — no new cause of action created |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate on negligence claim | Schueller initially asserted negligence but later conceded | Defendants moved for summary judgment on negligence | Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on negligence (plaintiff conceded) |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate on gross negligence claim | Schueller sought summary judgment on gross negligence | Defendants opposed, pointing to disputed facts about the shooting | Court denied Plaintiff’s summary judgment on gross negligence due to genuine factual disputes |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate on excessive-force claim (as pleaded/common-law or constitutional) | Schueller sought summary judgment on excessive-force | Defendants moved for summary judgment on excessive-force; factual disputes exist | Court granted Defendants’ motion on excessive-force (summary judgment for Defendants) and denied Plaintiff’s motion — genuine issues of material fact remained for the constitutional/common-law excessive-force allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Corr. Serv. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (refusal to extend Bivens beyond established contexts)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (permitting Bivens action in narrow Eighth Amendment context)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (recognizing Bivens-type remedy in Fifth Amendment employment context)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (holding lack of Bivens remedy where alternative remedies exist)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing implied damages remedy against federal officers)
- Jones v. City of Philadelphia, 890 A.2d 1188 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006) (declining to recognize private excessive-force cause under state constitution for reasons analogous to Bivens analysis)
- Jones v. State, 745 A.2d 856 (Del. 1999) (noting Delaware’s constitutional language parallels and historical convergence with Pennsylvania provisions)