White, Jr. v. Martin
425 F. App'x 736
10th Cir.2011Background
- Trooper Martin sought summary judgment on qualified immunity regarding White's excessive-force claim; the district court denied.
- Record evidence consisted of dashboard and witness videos; no affidavits or depositions used for the summary judgment record.
- Incident occurred May 24, 2009: Martin stopped the ambulance with a patient, grabbed White, and a struggle ensued.
- White claimed Fourth Amendment excessive force and unlawful seizure; district court found probable cause for the seizure and unresolved excessive-force issue.
- On appeal, court held it has jurisdiction to review de novo the excessive-force issue and the clearly established-right issue under the collateral-order doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a Fourth Amendment excessive-force violation? | White contends the force was unreasonable. | Martin argues any force was objectively reasonable. | Yes, objectively unreasonable under Graham; district court correct to deny summary judgment. |
| Was the right clearly established at the time? | Case law supported a clearly established right against excessive force. | No clearly established right present given facts not identical to precedents. | Yes, right clearly established under the circumstances. |
| Is the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity reviewable on appeal? | Jurisdiction to review the qualified-immunity ruling should be available. | Such denials are not appealable unless they resolve a pure legal issue. | Yes, appellate jurisdiction exists under collateral-order doctrine to review the law question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (collateral-order review of qualified-immunity issues available if legal)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (limits on review of immunities and finality rules)
- Howards v. McLaughlin, 634 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2011) (Behrens-style review of qualified-immunity on appeal)
- Lewis v. Tripp, 604 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2010) (can review record de novo to determine clearly established law)
- Casey v. City of Fed. Heights, 509 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2010) (more egregious conduct requires less specificity to establish rights)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence can resolve material facts for summary judgment)
- Pride v. Does, 997 F.2d 712 (10th Cir. 1993) (fact pattern distinguishable from Casey and thus not controlling)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (clarifies clearly established-right analysis)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (original approach to qualified immunity before Pearson)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (modifies sequencing of constitutional violation and clearly established questions)