LESLIE ATKINSON v. BRENT GODFREY, In his individual capacity as a law enforcement officer with the Harnett County Sheriff‘s Office; WAYNE COATS, In his official capacity as Sheriff of Harnett County, North Carolina
No. 23-1344
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
May 2, 2024
PUBLISHED. Argued: January 23, 2024. Reversed and remanded in part, dismissed in part by published opinion.
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1344
LESLIE ATKINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRENT GODFREY, In his individual capacity as a law enforcement officer with the Harnett County Sheriff‘s Office; WAYNE COATS, In his official capacity as Sheriff of Harnett County, North Carolina,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
JOHN DOE, as Surety,
Defendant.
Argued: January 23, 2024 Decided: May 2, 2024
Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Reversed and remanded in part, dismissed in part by published opinion. Judge Quаttlebaum wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Rushing join. Judge Wilkinson wrote a concurring opinion.
Brian Florencio Castro, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Russell Snow Thompson, IV, THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC, Scottsdale, Arizona, for Appellee.
QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:
The primary issue in this appeal is whether a law enforcement officer called to the scene of a private repossession of a vehicle is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim that the officer unreasonably seized the vehicle in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Neither the Supreme Court, our Court, the highest court of the state where the conduct occurred nor a consensus of other circuit courts of appeals have determined that conduct similar to that of the officer is unconstitutional. So, the right alleged to be violated was not clearly established. As a result, we reverse the district court‘s denial of the officer‘s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity and remand with instructions to grant.
A.
To purchase a 2003 Chevrolet Avalanche, Leslie Atkinson executed a retail installment sales contract that granted the seller a security interest in the vehicle. The seller assigned the salеs contract, and the security interest, to Credit Acceptance Corporation. A few years later, Credit Acceptance engaged Primeritus Financial Services to repossess the vehicle. Primeritus, in turn, hired Carolina Repo to conduct the repossession.
When a Carolina Repo representative arrived at Atkinson‘s house to conduct the repossession, he found the vehicle parked by the back door. The Carolina Repo representative backed his tow truck toward Atkinson‘s vehicle. Noticing the repossession in progrеss, Atkinson exited her home. Atkinson jumped into her vehicle and attempted to drive off while the Carolina Repo representative “continued backing up [the truck] and slid its tow bar under the [v]ehicle.” J.A. 15. This lifted the vehicle‘s back tires into the air. Concerned for her safety, Atkinson put the vehicle in park. The Carolina Repo representative walked over to her and demanded she exit the vehicle.
After the Carolina Repo representative and Atkinson argued about the repossession, the representative called the Harnett County Sheriff‘s Office for assistance. The representative asked whether Atkinson had any outstanding warrants. The Sheriff‘s Office sent Brent Godfrey, a deputy, to Atkinson‘s home. When he arrived, Godfrey saw Atkinson in the vehicle, the back end of which was still suspended in the air by the Carolina Repo truck‘s tow bar. Godfrey ordered her out of the vehicle so that the Carolina Repo representative could repossess it. Because she was intimidated by Godfrey, Atkinson got out of the vehicle as requested.
B.
Atkinson sued Godfrey and Sheriff Wayne Coats under
Godfrey and Coats moved to dismiss Atkinson‘s
Office‘s liability could be ruled out. Godfrey and Coats timely appealed the district court‘s denial of their motion.
II.
Before addressing the merits of the defendants’ appeal, we consider our federal appellate jurisdiction.3 Our jurisdiction is generally limited to the review of final decisions.
We begin with our jurisdiction to consider the defendants’ challenge to the district court‘s order denying the motion to dismiss the claim against Godfrey. The defendants’ motion to dismiss accepts Atkinson‘s factual allegations from the complaint as true but contends that, even so, Godfrey is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Thus, since the defendants’ challenge to the district court‘s denial of qualified immunity to Godfrey turns on a legal question, we have jurisdiction to review it.
III.
With our jurisdiction to review the district court‘s ruling on Atkinson‘s
A.
“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012). The immunity balances two important interests: “the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan,
555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). The protection appliеs regardless of whether the government official‘s error is a mistake of law, a mistake of fact or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact. Id. It gives “government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments, and protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.S. 3, 6 (2013) (per curiam) (internal quotes and citation omitted). While qualified immunity provides a defense to liability, it is also intended to free officials from litigation concerns and disruptive discovery. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 685 (2009).
In reviewing a district court‘s decision rejecting a defendant‘s аssertion of qualified immunity, we apply a two-step analysis. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). Under the first prong of the analysis, we ask “whether a constitutional violation occurred.” Melgar ex rel. Melgar v. Greene, 593 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir. 2010). The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on this question. Stanton v. Elliott, 25 F.4th 227, 233 (4th Cir. 2022). Under the second prong, we ask whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the events in question. Id.; see also Danser v. Stansberry, 772 F.3d 340, 346 (4th Cir. 2014). The officer bears the burden on this question. Stanton, 25 F.4th at 233.
We may address these questions in the order that would best facilitate the fair and efficient disposition of the case. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. That means that we may grant qualified immunity on the ground that the purported right was not clearly established without resolving the “often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all.” Reichle, 566 U.S. at 664. The flexibility in approaching the questions “comports with
[the Supreme Court‘s] usual reluctance to decide constitutional questions unnecessarily.” Id.
B.
Exercising the analytical discretion permitted for considering qualified immunity, we begin with prong two. Under that prong, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time of the challenged conduct, the law did not clearly establish that the officer‘s conduct was unconstitutional. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62–63 (2018).
Atkinson claims Godfrey violated her Fourth Amendment right, made applicable
The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures.6 But the defendants contend that the Fourth Amendment does not apply here, asserting that Carolina Repo, a private company, repossessed the car and that Godfrey‘s involvement was de minimis. And it is true that the Fourth Amendment only proscribes government action. It does not apply “to a search or seizure, even an unreasonablе one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge
of any governmental official.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984) (quoting Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 662 (1980) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)).
Typically, government officials are not required to answer for private parties’ actions. See Cochran v. Gilliam, 656 F.3d 300, 306 (6th Cir. 2011). But in Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992), the Supreme Court recognized the potential for law enforcement to become so enmeshed in a forceable seizure conducted by a private party to constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Relying on Soldal, Atkinson claims the law clearly establishes that law enforcement officials violate the Fоurth Amendment by actively participating in a repossession.
But even if we assume, without deciding, that principle is clearly established as a general matter, we must decide whether it is specific enough to foreclose Godfrey‘s qualified immunity defense on its second prong. That is because “[a] clearly established right is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he or she is doing violates that right.” Adams v. Ferguson, 884 F.3d 219, 226 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). The way in which an alleged right is described matters. “[C]ourts must not ‘define clearly established law at a high level оf generality . . . .‘” Wesby, 583 U.S. at 63-64 (quoting Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 779 (2014)). Defining the right at a high level of generality, “avoids the crucial question whether the offic[er] acted reasonably in the particular circumstances that he or she faced.” Id. (quoting Plumhoff, 572 U.S. at 779). Instead, we must identify the specific right the plaintiff alleges was infringed at a “high level of particularity.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 250–51 (4th Cir. 1999).
Thus, for Atkinson‘s right to be clearly established, there must be case law not just about the general principle that law enforcement officials violate the Fourth Amendment by actively participating in a wrongful repossession; the law must establish that conduct similar to Godfrey‘s is unconstitutionаl. Although a case directly on point is not required, existing precedent “must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 104 (2018) (per curiam) (quoting Pauly, 580 U.S. at 79). And again, the clearly established right must be viewed with reference to the particular facts of the case. Pauly, 580 U.S. at 79. “Otherwise, plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract facts.” Id. (cleaned up). In the end, the key inquiry is whether “the law provided ‘fair warning’ that [the officer‘s] conduct was unconstitutional.” Booker v. S.C. Dep‘t of Corr., 855 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002)).
Applying these principles, the right Atkinson asserts is too general to have clearly established that Godfrey‘s conduct was unconstitutional at the time of the repossession. Merely knowing that law enforcement officials can violate the Fourth Amendment by actively participating in a wrongful repossession would not put Godfrey on notice that his particular conduct was unconstitutional. To the contrary, it begs the critical question—what conduct crosses the line in a private repossession from peacekeeping to actively participating?
To answer that question, we must see whethеr the law clearly established that conduct similar to that of Godfrey was unconstitutional. And for that inquiry, we consider
decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and the highest court of the state in which the case arose. Edwards, 178 F.3d at 251.7
Beginning with the Supreme Court, Atkinson claims Soldal clearly establishes the right she asserts. We disagree. That case involved a landlord who sought to evict a family by removing their trailer home from a rented lot in a mobile home park. Soldal, 506 U.S. at 57–58. Under state law, a tenant could not be removed absent a judgment of eviction. Id. at 58. Instead of waiting for the legal process underway to run its course, the landlord notified the sheriff‘s department that it intended to remove the trailer home from the park and requested the sheriff‘s department‘s assistance to “forestall any possible resistance.” Id. A sheriff‘s deputy arrived at the home with employees of the park owner. The employees then “wrench[ed] the sewer and water connections off the side of the trailer home, disconnect[ed] the phone, [tore] off the trailer‘s canopy and skirting, and hook[ed] the home to a tractor.” Id. The sheriff‘s deputy also told the tenant that he was there to make sure that the tenant did not interfere with the eviction work. Id. Another deputy who later arrived on the scene refused to accept any criminal trespass complaint from the tenants despite knowing that the landlord did not have an eviction order. Id. at 58–59.
The Supreme Court held that the unlawful disposition of the home was a “seizure invoking the protection of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 61. But it did not decide whether the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment, noting that was “a different question that
requires determining if the seizure was reasonable,” which was an “inquiry [that] entails the weighing of various factors” not before the Court. Id. at 61–62. Thus, Soldal establishes the general principle
The Court also limited the scope of its decision, recognizing that “numerous seizures of this type will survive constitutional scrutiny,” and noting the need to balance carefully governmental and private interests in determining reasonableness. Id. at 71; see also id. (noting that if the officers were acting pursuant to a court order, for example, showing unreasonableness under the facts presented would be a “laborious task indeed“).
So, while Soldal may support the general principle Atkinson advances—that law enforcement officials may violate the Fourth Amendment by actively participating in a wrongful repossession—that prinсiple is too broad to clearly establish that Godfrey‘s conduct was unconstitutional. And from a factual standpoint, Soldal is very different from the facts Atkinson alleges here. It involved an eviction from a mobile home park, not the repossession of a car. And unlike Godfrey‘s conduct, the Soldal deputies worked with the mobile park owners from the beginning of the eviction efforts to the end. Because the facts
in Soldal greatly differ from the facts here, that decision would not have provided fair warning to Godfrey that his conduct was unconstitutional.
Atkinson also contends the Supreme Court‘s decision in Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972), clearly established that Godfrey‘s conduct violated her Fourth Amendment rights. But her reliance on that case is even less compelling. There, the Court held that certain state statutes authorizing the seizure of property without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard violated the Fourteenth Amendment‘s Due Process Clause. Id. at 90–92. So, Fuentes does not even involve the same alleged unlawful seizure that we consider here. What‘s more, Fuentes does not address what a law enforcement officer is lawfully permitted to do when he arrives on the scene of a repossession in progress. Id. at 96 n.32 (characterizing its holding as narrow and declining to reach the question of whether the statutory procedures violated the Fourth Amendment made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment). Therefore, it would not have placed Godfrey on notice that his conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.
With no Supreme Court authority, we would typically look to our Court‘s precedent and to decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. But the parties agree that neither we nor the Supreme Court of North Carolina have addressed the issue presented here.
Absent deсisions from the Supreme Court, our Court and the Supreme Court of North Carolina, we may look to a “consensus of cases of persuasive authority’ from other jurisdictions, if such exists.” Owens ex rel. Owens v. Lott, 372 F.3d 267, 280 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 617 (1999)). But none exists here. Other circuits that have addressed this question for the most part agree that “officers are not state actors
during a private
The district court properly recognized that our Court has not addressed the question presented here. Even so, it found the Western District of Virginia‘s decision in Goard v. Crown Auto, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 3d 915 (W.D. Va. 2016), persuasive. But Goard is a district court decision from a different state. District court opinions, unlike those from the courts
of appeals, do not necessarily settle constitutional standards with respect to claims of qualified immunity. Booker, 855 F.3d at 545 (citing Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 709 n.7 (2011)). Such opinions do not have precedential value. Id. And while Goard relies on Soldal and Fuentes, we have already explained that neither of those cases provides notice of a violation of a clearly established right here.
Lastly, Atkinson argues that the combination of Soldal, Fuentes and North Carolina case law makes clear that the right she alleges was clearly established. But that is not how the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis works. We do not decide whether a right is clearly established like a customer in a buffet line selectively picking items and declining others to come up with the ideal meal. And the reason for this should be clear. The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis examines if the law fairly warned an officer that his conduct violated the Constitution. Mixing and matching parts of dissimilar decisions does not provide fair warning.
To sum uр our qualified immunity analysis, neither the Supreme Court, our Court nor North Carolina‘s high court has provided fair warning that conduct like Godfrey‘s was unconstitutional. Nor is there a consensus from other courts of appeals that would have provided fair warning to a reasonable officer standing in Godfrey‘s shoes. Godfrey is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity.
IV.
We turn next to the defendants’ appeal of the district court‘s order denying the motion to dismiss the claim against Coats.
To begin, interlocutory review of a denied qualified immunity claim does not automatically confer jurisdiction over all other issues in the case. See Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm‘n, 514 U.S. 35, 43–51 (1995). Atkinson sued Coats in his official capacity, not his individual capacity. Official capacity suits are treated as suits against the municipality, Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666, 688 (4th Cir. 2019), so qualified immunity does not apply to such claims, Owens v. Balt. City State‘s Att‘ys Off., 767 F.3d 379, 402 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Unlike public officials, municipalities do not enjoy qualified immunity.“). That is why “claims against municipalities are measured against current law, without regard to whether municipalities’ obligations were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.” Id. Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978), a municipality “may not be sued under
Normally, Coats’ appeal would not be subject to immediate interlocutory review. But pendent appellate jurisdiction is available when an issue is “(1) inextricably
intertwined with the decision of the lower court to deny qualified immunity or (2) consideration of the additional issue is necessary to ensure meaningful review of the qualified immunity question.” Bellotte v. Edwards, 629 F.3d 415, 427 (4th Cir. 2011).
One way we might have pendent jurisdiction over the defendants’ аppeal of the district court‘s rulings on the claim against Coats is if our disposition of the claim against Godfrey necessarily resolved the claim against Coats. On that point, it is true that “a municipality cannot be liable in the absence of a constitutional violation by one of its agents.” Altman v. City of High Point, 330 F.3d 194, 207 n.10 (4th Cir. 2003); see also Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636, 654 & n.11 (4th Cir. 2012) (“Because we hold that all plaintiffs failed to state predicate
But we have not concluded that Godfrey did not violate Atkinson‘s Fourth Amendment rights. Instеad, under prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, we held that the constitutional rights Atkinson claimed Godfrey violated were not clearly established at the time of Godfrey‘s conduct. And since we have not held that Godfrey did not violate Atkinson‘s constitutional rights, our disposition of the claim against Godfrey does not necessarily resolve the claim against Coats. While it may be less likely that a municipality may be found liable when the constitutional terrain was as murky as that here, the rules of pendent jurisdiction counsel staying our hand. For that reason, we decline to exercise jurisdictiоn over the appeal with respect to Coats as the issues it presents are not
inextricably intertwined with our resolution of the qualified immunity issues.8 Rux v. Republic of Sudan, 461 F.3d 461, 475 (4th Cir. 2006) (pendent appellate jurisdiction is an exception of limited and narrow application).
V.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court‘s order and remand with instructions to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the claim against Godfrey. We dismiss the appeal with respect to the claim against Coats.
REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, concurring:
Municipal budgets are strained. Public schools face deferred maintenance costs. Local roads need repair. The fire department may need new equipment. The police department may be understaffed. Teachers may be underpaid. Sanitation workers may deserve a raise. The perennially starved parks and recreation department may welcome an infusion.
Municipal liability is not easily established. As the majority makes clear, the Supreme Court in Monell explicitly rejected respondeat superior liability, meaning that municipal liability in turn does not follow a ruling on qualified immunity as a matter of course. Municipalities, of course, do nоt have qualified immunity. Yet the whole idea of fair notice that lies at the heart of qualified immunity for individuals need not be wholly abandoned when policymakers are concerned. In other words, it is not immediately apparent why the municipal fisc should be burdened in the absence of any ascertainable federal standards by which municipal policies can be gauged. While municipal bodies may have more time or legal advice at their disposal than individual officials do, they are also uniquely taxed with devising workable and even novel solutions to their own sets оf pressing problems.
The majority notes, “While it may be less likely that a municipality may be found liable when the constitutional terrain was as murky as that here, the rules of pendent jurisdiction counsel staying our hand.” Maj. Op. at *18. I agree with that statement and I thus concur in Judge Quattlebaum‘s excellent opinion for the majority.