Crystal COATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Derrick POWELL, in his official and individual capacity; Jeff Glandon, in his official and individual capacity; James Keathley, Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-1639
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
April 8, 2011
639 F.3d 471
Second, Hartford essentially wants us to conclude that its use of language containing no fixed date of expiration in the declarations sheet meant any replacement policy would necessarily be viewed as a renewal or continuation—rather than a cancellation and replacement—unless and until a new declarations sheet was issued. We read Sutherland as specifically rejecting the argument that the use of no fixed date of expiration in a declarations sheet “merely provides notice that the next premium period will be considered a renewal or continuation.” 464 N.W.2d at 153. Instead, under the circumstances involved in Sutherland, the court found such language merely created an ambiguity “in light of the language specifically referring to the date the policy was issued.” Id. The court then went on to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the insured in accord with well-accepted principles of insurance law. See id.
In this case, we are faced with a conflict between a declarations sheet which says the 7179 policy is in effect from “April 1, 2000 until cancelled” and a nonrenewal notice (sent in compliance with the policy‘s specific provisions on cancellation/nonrenewal conditions) which says the policy is terminated “as of April 1, 2003.” We believe, at best, the nonrenewal notice renders the declarations sheet ambiguous, and, in accord with well-accepted principles of insurance law, we are required to resolve the ambiguity in favor of Pioneer.
IV
We affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.
Stephen S. Wyse, Wyse Law Firm, P.C., Columbia, MO, argued, for appellant.
Theodore A. Bruce, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, argued (Chris Koster, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellees Derrick Powell and James Keathley.
Marshall V. Wilson, Berry Wilson, L.L.C., Jefferson City, MO, argued (Michael G. Berry, on the brief), for appellee Jeff Glandon.
Before GRUENDER, BRIGHT, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 5, 2006, the Missouri Department of Social Services received a call that Coates‘s children were playing outside the home unattended. This prompted an investigation by Tiffany Clevenger, a Children‘s Social Worker with the Children‘s Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services. On the next day, Clevenger contacted local law enforcement offices and requested that Officer Glandon accompany her to investigate the call, as provided for in Missouri statutes.3 Trooper Powell was present at the time and volunteered to assist Clevenger and Officer Glandon in the investigation.
The three proceeded to Coates‘s house, arriving at approximately 10:00 in the morning. They possessed no warrant to enter Coates‘s house and believed the children were at school. Once there, Coates‘s boyfriend consented to their entry into the house. Coates awoke from her sleep and, after some heated discussion with the officers, she told the officers to “get the —— out of my house.” During this time, Coates attempted to get up from a couch where she was seated, but Powell touched her at least twice, forcing her back into the couch. However, at no time did Officer Glandon touch Coates. The officers remained in the house for another ten to fifteen minutes at which time Clevenger directed that they leave and all three left the house.
After the investigators left the house, Coates also left her home, got in her car, and drove off to pick up her daughter from school. The officers stayed outside Coates‘s home until she returned, at which time Powell asked Coates for her driver‘s license, intending to cite her for improperly displaying a license plate and not wearing a seatbelt. Coates refused to sign the citations and told Powell to “haul her in.” Powell arrested her, and in handcuffing her, applied a “CLAMP” maneuver during which he broke her arm. He then called for medical assistance. Coates did not believe Powell intended to break her arm. The application of the CLAMP maneuver took only a couple of seconds.
Coates subsequently filed state law tort claims and claims for deprivation of her civil rights under
As for Glandon, in July 2009, the district court granted him qualified immunity against Coates‘s
II. DISCUSSION
A. Attorney‘s fees
Coates challenges the district court‘s determination that she was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney‘s fees under
A “prevailing party” is one that obtains a judicially sanctioned, material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties. Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep‘t of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 601 (2001). Examples include enforceable judgments on the merits and court-ordered consent decrees. Id. at 604. We have stated that Buckhannon “implied [that] a party that obtains a mere private settlement does not qualify [as a prevailing party], because ‘private settlements do not entail the judicial approval and oversight involved in consent decrees.‘” Bill M. v. Nebraska Dep‘t of Health and Human Services, 570 F.3d 1001, 1003 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 604 n. 7).
Shortly after Buckhannon, we examined whether a private settlement between a class of prisoners and a training school rendered the class of prisoners a prevailing party. Christina A. v. Bloomberg, 315 F.3d 990, 991-92 (8th Cir.2003). Although the district court in that case approved the settlement agreement as “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Rule 23(e) of the
We conclude this line of cases forecloses Coates from obtaining attorney‘s fees as a prevailing party. Shortly before trial, Powell (and others) offered to settle for $45,000. The entirety of the offer states, “This letter is to formalize the settlement offer on behalf of the State of Missouri. We are willing to pay your client $45,000.00 in settlement of all claims between Plaintiff and the Defendants.” Jt.App. at 750. On the eve of trial, Coates responded to the offer via email: “We‘ve reviewed the $45,000 settlement offer you faxed on Friday and my client has accepted your terms.” Jt.App. at 751. The parties did not otherwise execute a formal written settlement contract. The district court did not incorporate the agreement into a settlement decree or into the order for dismissal and expressly stated that it would not incorporate the terms of the settlement into its judgment or retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the contract.
Here, the district court took no action judicially sanctioning or materially altering the legal relationship of the parties. The court did not approve a settlement, nor enter a judgment on the merits or a consent decree. There is no judicial imprimatur on the settlement which could give rise to prevailing party status. Accordingly, we hold that Coates is not entitled to attorney‘s fees under
B. Qualified Immunity
Coates contends the district court erred in holding that Glandon did not violate her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by remaining in her home after she revoked the consent given by her boyfriend.5 Coates argues that “black letter law” establishes that intrusions into the home, absent a warrant, exigent circumstances, or consent of an apparently authorized party are presumed unreasonable.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party presents no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Seymour v. City of Des Moines, 519 F.3d 790, 796 (8th Cir.2008). We review de novo summary judgment where granted on the basis of qualified
“[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.‘” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). We may first determine whether the officer‘s conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), overruled in part by Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 818 (holding Saucier‘s two-step sequence is not mandatory). If so, we next consider whether that right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-02.
As to the first inquiry, the district court concluded that Glandon violated the Fourth Amendment when he refused to leave Coates‘s home, explaining:
The undisputed facts indicate that there [was no threat to the Coates children] confronting Officer Glandon. While there is evidence of a hotline call, the only descriptions of the hotline call indicate that it was a report of children playing outside unattended.... [T]here was no urgency in the conduct of that investigation.... The parties agree that, at the time Coates revoked consent, the officers knew that the children were not in the home.... The officers apparently did not believe Coates herself to be a danger to the children ... [And] do not argue that Coates‘s agitation alone created exigent circumstances independently allowing the officers to remain in the house.... They could have attempted to obtain a warrant. They did not. The officers raise no argument that they left Coates‘s house within a reasonable time of being ordered to leave: there is evidence that they did not leave for more than ten minutes after consent was revoked, and only upon Clevenger‘s request. They were in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they remained in the house for an unreasonable time after consent was revoked.
Coates, 650 F.Supp.2d at 939-40.
On appeal, neither Coates nor Glandon challenge the court‘s determination that Glandon‘s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we turn to the second inquiry of qualified immunity analysis.
“In determining whether the legal right at issue is clearly established, this circuit applies a flexible standard, requiring some, but not precise factual correspondence with precedent, and demanding that officials apply general, well-developed legal principles.” J.H.H. v. O‘Hara, 878 F.2d 240, 243 (8th Cir.1989) (quotation omitted). This is a “fact-intensive inquiry and must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Samuelson v. City of New Ulm, 455 F.3d 871, 875 (8th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). We assess the “objective reasonableness of the action ... in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (stating an officer‘s “subjective beliefs about the search are irrelevant“). As we explained in Omni, “the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” 285 F.3d at 653. Accordingly, we frame the clearly established question as whether a reasonable police officer would have known that he violated clearly established Fourth
We have stated that qualified immunity “protects public officials who act in good faith while performing discretionary duties that they are obliged to undertake.” Kloch v. Kohl, 545 F.3d 603, 609 (8th Cir. 2008). In that case, we held the Nebraska Attorney General‘s obligation to enforce the laws of his state entitled him to qualified immunity, even though the law was of arguable constitutional validity. Id. Likewise, the Ninth Circuit has held that an officer who acts in reliance on a duly-enacted statute is ordinarily entitled to qualified immunity, unless the statute is “obviously” unconstitutional. Humphries v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170, 1202 (9th Cir.2009), as amended. And the Tenth Circuit has observed that “reli[ance] on a state statute, regulation, or official policy that explicitly sanctioned the conduct in question” is a relevant factor in considering the objective legal reasonableness of a state official‘s action. Roska ex rel. Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, 1251-52 (10th Cir.2003) (holding reliance on a state statute did not authorize removal of children absent pre-deprivation procedures).
Here, Glandon undertook an obligation under Missouri law to assist Clevenger in the investigation relating to Coates‘s children.6 Although Coates ordered the officers out of the house, she did not address Clevenger in that request.7 Clevenger remained inside the house, attempting to continue the investigation. We believe that a reasonable police officer could act in good faith and remain in the house still assisting Clevenger. Glandon did exactly that in this case. He (and Powell) immediately left the house when Ms. Clevenger told them to leave.
For these reasons, we agree with the finding of the district court “that Glandon is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of this incident that an officer was required to leave a private home in the middle of a child neglect investigation.” Coates, 650 F.Supp.2d at 938-39. That precisely was the situation here.
For the above reasons, we affirm the dismissal of the
SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority‘s conclusion that Coates was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney‘s fees under
I am deeply concerned about the Fourth Amendment violation at issue in this case. Respect for the sanctity of the home “has been embedded in our traditions since the
A finding of a Fourth Amendment violation does not end the analysis, and I agree with the majority that the crux of the qualified immunity question is whether a reasonable officer would have understood that remaining in Coates‘s home without her permission violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law. But I disagree with the majority‘s conclusion that despite the longstanding Fourth Amendment prohibition, Glandon acted reasonably because of the obligations imposed on officers under the Missouri statute at issue. Because I believe the Missouri statute did not make Glandon‘s actions objectively reasonable, I respectfully dissent.
The qualified immunity inquiry turns on the “objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 (1999) (internal quotations omitted). “[T]he existence of a statute or ordinance authorizing particular conduct is a factor which militates in favor of the conclusion that a reasonable official would find that conduct constitutional.” Roska, 328 F.3d at 1252 (quoting Grossman v. City of Portland, 33 F.3d 1200, 1209 (9th Cir.1994)). Police officers are entitled to rely on the assumption that the legislature considered the views of legal counsel and concluded that the statute is constitutional. Id. at 1252 n. 29 (quoting Grossman, 33 F.3d at 1209). The existence of an authorizing statute, however, does not make an officer‘s actions per se reasonable. Denton v. Rievley, 353 Fed.Appx. 1, 6 (6th Cir.2009); Roska, 328 F.3d at 1252; Grossman, 33 F.3d at 1209-10.
Whether a statute makes an officer‘s actions reasonable depends in part on “the degree of specificity with which the statute authorized the conduct in question.” Roska, 328 F.3d at 1253. For example, in Denton, the Sixth Circuit found that a state statute indicating a preference for arrest where there is probable cause of domestic abuse was insufficiently specific to make the officer‘s arrest of a person inside his home without a warrant objectively reasonable. 353 Fed.Appx. at 6-7. Because the state statute did not require warrantless arrests and was silent as to whether the preference for arrest applied to warrantless, in-home arrests, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the statute did not make the officer‘s actions reasonable in light of longstanding Supreme Court precedent holding that such actions violate the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 7. Accordingly, before concluding that the Missouri statute at issue made Glandon‘s actions reasonable, I think the majority should have considered the statute‘s specificity.
Because the Missouri statute imposes only a general obligation on officers, Glan-
The majority cites Kloch in support of its opposite conclusion. In Kloch, we hinted at a per se rule of reasonableness when we broadly stated that officers’ actions are objectively reasonable when they act “in good faith while performing discretionary duties that they are obliged to undertake.” 545 F.3d at 609. However, because legal reasonableness ultimately depends on the legal landscape taken as a whole, Wilson, 526 U.S. at 614, Kloch must stand for the limited proposition that when a state statute specifically requires officers to take certain actions, the officer‘s compliance with the statute will generally resolve the question of reasonableness. Accordingly, Kloch is not dispositive here because the Missouri statute did not specifically require Glandon to remain with the social services worker.
The majority finds Kloch applicable because it treats the Missouri statute as obligating Glandon to accompany social services workers into private homes. The majority describes the clearly established question as whether the Fourth Amendment was violated “when the officer was accompanying a social services worker investigating a complaint of child neglect as required by state statute” (emphasis added). If the Missouri statute had in fact required Glandon to “accompany” the social services worker, I would most likely agree that it made Glandon‘s actions reasonable. Because the statute imposed only a general obligation to assist, however, I conclude that despite the Missouri statute, a reasonable officer would have known that remaining in Coates‘s home violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law.
I respectfully dissent from the majority‘s decision to grant qualified immunity to Glandon.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ronald JACKSON, Appellant.
No. 10-2027.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 14, 2011.
Filed: May 9, 2011.
Notes
shall contact the appropriate law enforcement agency immediately upon receipt of a report which [Children‘s Division] personnel determine merits an investigation and provide such agency with a detailed description of the report received. In such cases the local division office shall request the assistance of the local law enforcement agency in all aspects of the investigation of the complaint.