State ex rel. Carlos D. Alsup, Relator v. The Honorable James F. Kanatzar, 588 S.W.3d 187

On April 28, 2016, student Israel Mariano refused to board the school bus; after a struggle at Independence Academy his mother turned him over to staff and Alsup physically restrained him, resulting in a broken arm.
Alsup was an in-school suspension teacher at the District’s alternative school; the District adopted Policy 2770 (per §160.263) and provided CPI training describing authorized restraint methods.
Policy 2770 permits physical restraint in emergencies, when less-restrictive measures fail, or per individualized plans, and allows staff discretion as to method, force, and duration so long as personnel use district-approved training.
Mariano sued Alsup individually for negligence. Alsup’s two motions to dismiss were overruled; he then moved for summary judgment asserting official immunity, and the circuit court denied that motion.
Alsup sought a writ of prohibition in the court of appeals (denied) and then in the Missouri Supreme Court seeking to bar further proceedings and obtain judgment for Alsup.
The Missouri Supreme Court concluded Alsup was entitled to official immunity as a matter of law, made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, and directed the circuit court to vacate its order overruling summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alsup is entitled to official immunity for restraining Mariano	Alsup acted negligently while performing his duties and is not immune	Alsup acted within scope of official duties, without malice, and official immunity protects discretionary acts	Court held Alsup entitled to official immunity; summary judgment should have been granted
Whether the ministerial-act exception defeats immunity (Policy 2770/method of restraint)	Once Alsup decided to restrain, how he restrained was a ministerial duty under Policy 2770; failing to follow the approved method removes immunity	The decision whether, when, how, and how long to restrain are discretionary; required training does not make the act clerical	Court held restraint decisions were discretionary, not ministerial; the exception did not apply
Whether prohibition is the appropriate remedy to prevent suit	(implied) Plaintiff proceeded in circuit court after denial of MSJ	When immunity exists as a matter of law, prohibition is proper to prevent suit and judgment should be entered for the official	Court made preliminary writ permanent, barring further proceedings and ordering vacatur of the denial of summary judgment

State ex rel. Mo. Dep’t of Agric. v. McHenry, 687 S.W.2d 178 (Mo. banc 1985) (immunity protects from suit as well as judgment)
Twiehaus v. Adolf, 706 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. banc 1986) (prohibition is appropriate when immunity exists as a matter of law)
Southers v. City of Farmington, 263 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. banc 2008) (distinguishes sovereign and official immunity; defines official-immunity scope)
Green v. Denison, 738 S.W.2d 861 (Mo. banc 1987) (official immunity protects officials making rapid, high-stakes judgments)
Kanagawa v. State ex rel. Freeman, 685 S.W.2d 831 (Mo. banc 1985) (public interest in protecting officials who exercise discretionary judgment)
ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary-judgment standard)