Nahmod Law

Manuel v. City of Joliet: The Court Rules Section 1983 “Malicious Prosecution” Claims Can Be Based on the Fourth Amendment But Otherwise Punts

Background

Recall that the Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 15, 2016, in Manuel v. City of Joliet, 136 S. Ct. 890 (2016), an unreported Seventh Circuit section 1983 malicious prosecution decision.

Manuel, which was argued on October 5, 2016, had the potential to be a blockbuster section 1983 decision that transformed the section 1983 malicious prosecution landscape, especially for section 1983 claims brought for wrongful conviction and incarceration.

In Manuel, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court dismissing the plaintiff’s section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim that police officers maliciously prosecuted him when they falsified the results of drug tests and thereafter arrested him for possession with intent to distribute ecstasy. The district court relied on Newsome v. McCabe, 256  F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2001), and the Seventh Circuit panel found no compelling reason to reconsider that precedent. The Seventh Circuit explained: “Newsome held that federal claims of malicious prosecution are founded on the right to due process, not the Fourth Amendment, and thus there is no malicious prosecution claim under federal law if, as here, state law provides a similar cause of action.”

This was the Question Presented in Manuel: “Whether an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure continues beyond legal process so as to allow a malicious prosecution claim based upon the Fourth Amendment.”

According to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuits had all answered this question in the affirmative, while only the Seventh Circuit had answered in the negative.

Manuel raised two separate but related questions.

1. The first was whether the Fourth Amendment could be used as the basis for a section 1983 malicious prosecution claim, including for the period after so-called legal process began–when a judge determined that probable cause existed to hold the plaintiff.

2. The second, implied by the language of the Question Presented, and addressed by several of the Justices during oral argument, was whether the elements of the tort of malicious prosecution–including favorable termination as well as malice and absence of probable cause–should play any role in section 1983 claims challenging wrongful convictions and incarceration. This question was important under the facts in Manuel itself because, without a favorable termination requirement, the plaintiff’s section 1983 claim would be time-barred under the Illinois two-year statute of limitations even if it could be based on the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s Decision: Reversed on the Fourth Amendment But Punting on “Malicious Prosecution”

On March 21, 2017, the Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit’s decision that rejected the applicability of the Fourth Amendment after legal process has begun. In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Court held that there is indeed a Fourth Amendment right to be free from seizure without probable cause that extends through the pretrial period, even though the seizure is “pursuant to legal process.” Specifically, the seizure occurs both before the onset of legal proceedings, i.e, the arrest, and after the onset of criminal proceedings, i.e., where a judge’s probable cause determination is based solely on a police officer’s false statements, as was allegedly the case in Manuel. The Court’s reasoning was similar to the “continuing seizure” approach of Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence in Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994).

However, the Court remanded to the Seventh Circuit on the favorable termination/accrual question after describing the opposing positions on the issue, including the observation that the United States agreed with the plaintiff in Manuel, as did eight of the ten circuits that have favorable termination requirements.

Justice Kagan’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, with Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing both that the Fourth Amendment was not applicable in Manuel and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of a unique malicious prosecution accrual rule based on a favorable termination requirement.

Comments

The Court’s decision on the Fourth Amendment only changes the law in the Seventh Circuit. However, the Court punted on the broader question whether common law malicious prosecution elements, including favorable termination, should play any role in section 1983 jurisprudence outside of situations covered by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), where plaintiffs effectively challenge existing convictions.

These issues–raised, briefed and argued in Manuel– have been a matter of importance to me for some time. In fact, I wrote an amicus curia brief (posted previously) in support of the defendants in Manuel that deliberately did not take a position on the Fourth Amendment issue. Instead, the brief urged the Court to eliminate the confusion caused by the use of malicious prosecution terminology in section 1983 cases. The brief also maintained that the elimination of this terminology would be neutral in its effects on plaintiffs and defendants alike. My treatise, CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES LITIGATION: THE LAW OF SECTION 1983 (4th ed. 2016)(West), has for years called for the virtual elimination of most of the tort-like terminology used for such purposes and for a renewed focus on the constitutional bases for such claims.

Manuel provided the Court with its first opportunity in the twenty-three years since Albright v. Oliver to consider the elements of such claims. Regrettably, it did not do so in Manuel. Still, the Court will one day have to deal with these issues, including the favorable termination requirement.

When it does, recently confirmed Justice Gorsuch will be involved in the decision. And it is worth noting that then-Judge Gorsuch concurred in the judgment in Cordova v. City of Albuquerque, 816 F.3d 645 (10th Cir. 2016), where he came out against incorporating the common law tort elements of malicious prosecution, including favorable termination, in section 1983 cases.

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @NahmodLaw.

Written by snahmod

May 15, 2017 at 10:05 am

County of Los Angeles v. Mendez (pending): Section 1983, Proximate Cause and the Fourth Amendment

County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, No. 16-369 (argued March 22, 2017)

The Factual Background

Suppose that police officers, looking for a felony parolee-at-large with an outstanding arrest warrant, engage in a warrantless entry into a home without exigent circumstances (they should have secured a search warrant), and without knocking and announcing, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. They thereby allegedly “provoke” the plaintiff resident’s grabbing a gun (it turns out to be a BB gun), which in turn leads to a police officer’s shooting and seriously injuring the plaintiff.

The Proximate Cause Questions

Does the plaintiff have a section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim against the officer for damages resulting from the use of deadly force?  The theories underlying such liability are that the warrantless entry into the home either (1) “provoked” the subsequent events or (2)  was the proximate cause of the use of the deadly force which (even if reasonable when viewed in isolation) was the reasonably foreseeable result of the warrantless entry that violated the Fourth Amendment?

These are the questions raised by Mendez v. County of Los Angeles, 815 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2016), a Ninth Circuit decision that ruled for the resident, and as to which the Supreme Court has granted certiorari.

Specifically, in addition to the propriety of the Ninth Circuit’s questionable “provocation” rule, another aspect of the Question Presented is “whether, in an action brought under Section 1983, an incident giving rise to a reasonable use of force is an intervening, superseding event which breaks the chain of causation from a prior, unlawful entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

Comments

There have been other section 1983 proximate cause cases before the Supreme Court, but this one is different because it raises reasonable foreseeability (and superseding cause) as the proximate cause test in a split-second decision making setting. Compare Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), and Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277 (1980), both of which are discussed in sections 3:106-107 of my treatise, CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES LITIGATION: THE LAW OF SECTION 1983 (4th ed. 2016).

There is a critical complication in Mendez, however, that must be noted. The Ninth Circuit ruled in Mendez that the defendants did not violate clearly settled Fourth Amendment law in failing to knock and announce, even though they did violate the Fourth Amendment. That is, the defendants were protected by qualified immunity from damages liability-see Chapter 8 of my treatise–for their failure to knock and announce in violation of the Fourth Amendment, meaning that the proximate cause issue related to knock and announce may well disappear.

This is significant because it may weaken the plaintiff’s proximate cause argument. After all, isn’t the failure to knock and announce closely related in time and space to the plaintiff’s reaching for his BB gun? And isn’t this rather clearly reasonably foreseeable? On the other hand, how closely related in time and space is the defendants’ failure to obtain a search warrant to what happened later? Is this as clearly reasonably foreseeable?

The oral argument in Mendez focused on this issue, with various justices wondering about both the cause in fact and proximate cause relationship between the failure to get a search warrant and the resulting use of (constitutional) deadly force. They asked–cause in fact–whether the failure to get the search warrant made a difference in the plaintiff’s reaching for a gun (albeit a BB gun) that resulted in the use of deadly force. Several also skeptically asked–proximate cause–whether the plaintiff’s reaching for a gun was within the scope of the risk created by the failure to get a search warrant.

I suspect that a majority of the justices will rule for the defendants on this proximate cause issue. But going forward, much will depend on how the proximate cause opinion is written.

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @NahmodLaw.

Written by snahmod

May 10, 2017 at 10:22 am

White v. Pauly: Another Supreme Court Signal on Excessive Force and Qualified Immunity

In White v. Pauly,  137 S. Ct. 548 (2017)(per curiam), the Supreme Court once more strongly sent a message that police officers are to be given maximum deference when sued for damages under section 1983 and the Fourth Amendment for using excessive force.

Background

In 2015, the Supreme Court handed down Mullinex v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015), which ruled on qualified immunity grounds in favor of a police officer who allegedly used deadly force in violation of the Fourth Amendment in a high-speed police chase situation. See my post of Feb. 11, 2016.

An earlier decision, Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014), had ruled on the Fourth Amendment merits in favor of pursuing police officers who shot the driver and a passenger. See my post of May 28, 2014.

Both Plumhoff and Mullinex derive from the Court’s decision in Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), which ruled that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he attempted to stop a fleeing driver from continuing his “public-endangering flight” by ramming the driver’s car from behind even though the officer’s actions created the risk of serious injury or death to the driver. According to the Court in Scott, a video of the chase made clear that the officer’s ramming of the car was objectively reasonable.

White v. Pauly: A Police Officer Receives Qualified Immunity for Use of Deadly Force

In White v. Pauly, yet another excessive force case (this one not involving a high-speed chase), the Supreme Court continued to signal lower federal courts and litigants that the clearly settled law inquiry must be made at a relatively fact specific level. In the Court’s words: “This case addresses the situation of an officer who—having arrived late at an ongoing police action and having witnessed shots being fired by one of several individuals in a house surrounded by other officers—shoots and kills an armed occupant of the house without first giving a warning.” The Court ruled that the officer was protected by qualified immunity.

The plaintiff in White, representing the estate of his deceased brother, alleged that three police officers violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against the use of excessive force. The plaintiff was involved in a road-rage incident with two women who called 911 to report him as “drunk” and “swerving all crazy.” After a brief, nonviolent encounter with the women, the plaintiff drove off to a secluded house where he lived with his brother. Thereafter, two police officers—not including Officer White at the time–drove to the house (it was 11 pm) and were moving around outside. The plaintiff and his brother became aware of persons outside and yelled “Who are you?” and “What do you want?” The plaintiff maintained that he and his brother never heard the two officers identify themselves as police—only that the officers said they were armed and coming in. The brothers then armed themselves and began shooting. At that point Officer White, who had been radioed by the two officers, was walking toward the house when he heard the shots apparently directed at the two officers. Plaintiff’s brother then opened a front window and pointed a handgun in Officer White’s direction. One of the other two officers shot at the brother but missed him, followed immediately by White’s shooting and killing the plaintiff’s brother.

The district court denied all three defendants’ motions for summary judgment, and a divided panel of the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Pauly v. White, 814 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir. 2016). As to the two officers, the Tenth Circuit determined that taking the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff, reasonable officers should have understood that their conduct would cause the brothers to defend their home and might result in the use of deadly force against the deceased brother. As to Officer White, the Tenth Circuit ruled that the rule “that a reasonable officer in White’s position would believe that a warning was required despite the threat of serious harm” was clearly established at the time by statements from the Supreme Court’s case law. Judge Moritz dissented, arguing that the majority impermissibly second-guessed officer White’s quick decision to use deadly force.

The Supreme Court then reversed the Tenth Circuit, vacating the judgment against Officer White on the ground that he did not violate clearly established law on the record before the Tenth Circuit. The Court emphasized that it had regularly and repeatedly declared that clearly established law should not be articulated at a high level of generality. In the Court’s view, the Tenth Circuit “failed to identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances as Officer White was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment.” Instead the Tenth Circuit improperly relied on general statements from the Supreme Court and circuit court “progeny” that set out excessive force principles “at only a general level.” Furthermore, this case did not present an obvious Fourth Amendment violation: the Tenth Circuit majority did not conclude that the failure to shout a warning was a “run-of-the-mill Fourth Amendment violation.” Finally, the Court expressed no opinion on the question whether the other two officers were protected by qualified immunity. Justice Ginsburg concurred, pointing out her “understanding” that the Court’s opinion did not foreclose denying summary judgment to the two other officers.

Comments

The Supreme Court obviously cannot decide all of the excessive force/qualified immunity cases in the circuits. So it does the next best thing by signalling to the federal judiciary and litigants that it demands maximum deference to police involving the use of excessive force, together with providing (to police) a significant margin for error in making the qualified immunity determination. In White, this was accomplished by finding no clearly settled Fourth Amendment law because of the Court’s insistence on finding a similar case.

Notice that the signalling is also directed at those federal circuit judges who disagree with a denial of qualified immunity by their panels. They are encouraged to do the hard work and write dissents that might encourage the losing police officers to seek certiorari in the Supreme Court, as well as catch the eye of some of the Justices.

Finally, White makes clear to section 1983 excessive force plaintiffs that they must do their clearly established law homework (I call it “time-travel” research) in order to have a decent chance of surviving a defense motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

 

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @NahmodLaw.

 

Written by snahmod

April 21, 2017 at 8:29 am

An Injured Public Employee Gets Past DeShaney and Collins v. City of Harker Heights

The DeShaney and Collins Obstacles for Injured Public Employees Seeking Section 1983 Damages

A public employee who has been injured and thereby deprived of his or her constitutional rights by the employer’s failure to prevent the injury has two major section 1983 affirmative duty hurdles to overcome.

One is the familiar hurdle presented by DeShaney v. County of Winnebago, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), which held that due process does not impose an affirmative duty on state and local governments to protect individuals from private harm. I have blogged about DeShaney and its application in the circuits numerous times. I also analyze it in sections 3:59-61 of my treatise, CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES LITIGATION: THE LAW OF SECTION 1983 (2016).

But even if the DeShaney hurdle can be overcome by showing a special relationship or danger-creation by government, there is the addition hurdle presented by Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992), which held that section 1983 provides no due process remedy “for a municipal employee who is fatally injured in the course of his employment because the city customarily failed  to train or warn its employees about known hazards in the workplace.” Put another way, there is no affirmative due process duty to provide a safe workplace for a public employee. See section 3:58 of my treatise for analysis of Collins.

These two significant hurdles demonstrate why overcoming them both in the same case is highly unusual.

Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2016)

In Pauluk v. Savage, a potentially significant case, the Ninth Circuit held that the injured public employee surmounted both hurdles, even though he ultimately lost on qualified immunity grounds. See chapter 8 of my treatise on qualified immunity.

Decedent’s legal representative sued a county health district and two employees, alleging that their deliberately indifferent exposure of decedent to a workplace environment known to be infested with toxic mold caused his death, thereby violating substantive due process. The Ninth Circuit noted that this case was at the intersection of the state-created danger doctrine on the one hand and Collins v. City of Harker Heights on the other.

Ultimately reversing the district court’s denial of summary judgment to the defendant employees, the court first found that a substantive due process claim was stated under the state-created danger doctrine even though the case involved a physical condition in the workplace. Under the state-created danger doctrine the plaintiff properly alleged and introduced evidence of a violation of substantive due process in that the defendants knowingly created, and continued to create, the danger to the decedent. But it still ruled that the substantive due process right asserted was not clearly established between 2003 and 2005, when the decedent worked despite his protests, with the result that the defendant employees were protected by qualified immunity.

In addition, and more to the present point, the Ninth Circuit went on to rule that the state-created danger doctrine was not foreclosed in this case by Collins. The court observed that Collins did not involve a claim under the state-created danger doctrine, as here, but rather the claim of a general due process right to a safe workplace. This distinction was significant and cut in favor of the decedent. However, there was no violation of clearly settled law because, unlike existing circuit precedent, this case involved harm by a physical condition where decedent worked. Thus, the defendant employees were entitled to qualified immunity on this ground as well.

Judge Murguia concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that the plaintiff did not present a substantive due process claim of affirmative acts with deliberate indifference. 836 F.3d 1117 at 126.  Judge Noonan dissented, contending that the defendant employees in fact violated clearly settled substantive due process law in the Ninth Circuit. 836 F.3d 1117 at 1132.

Comments

1. The Ninth Circuit’s qualified immunity decision applies only to the defendant employees sued in their individual capacities for damages. But there still remains a possible section 1983 remedy against the county health district that was also sued by the decedent’s legal representative but was not technically a party to the defendant employees’ interlocutory appeal.

2. Even though the Ninth Circuit resolved the case in favor of the defendant employees on qualified immunity grounds, Pauluk still established clearly settled due process law going forward.

3. The result on the due process merits in Pauluk is the consequence of good lawyering and a careful reading of Collins. Plaintiff’s attorneys persuaded the Ninth Circuit that once the danger-creation doctrine was available, Collins did not apply where a very specific affirmative act regarding the workplace allegedly violated due process.

4. DeShaney and Collins kinds of cases often present tragic circumstances. Still, plaintiffs in such cases typically lose. Pauluk stands out.

I invite you to follow me on Twitter: @NahmodLaw

Written by snahmod

March 29, 2017 at 9:38 am

34th Annual Section 1983 Conference on April 20-21, 2017 in Chicago

I don’t ordinarily advertise on my blog but here comes a commercial.

IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law is hosting the 34th annual Section 1983 Conference in Chicago on April 20-21, 2017. This two-day conference covers all aspects of section 1983 and features the following well-known speakers: Erwin Chemerinsky, Karen Blum, Rosalie Levinson, Kimberly Bailey, John Murphey, Gerry Birnburg and me.

I hope to see you there.

Please check out the brochure, which is below. Note that the early rate expires on April 1, 2017.

http://cle.kentlaw.edu/database/brochures/34th%20Annual%20Section%201983%20Civil%20Rights%20Litigation%20Conference%20Brochure70554751.pdf

Written by snahmod

March 20, 2017 at 11:30 am

Political Protests and the First Amendment (Video)

On March 2, 2017, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law presented a two hour program for both non-lawyers and lawyers on political protests and free speech. This program was prompted by the suddenly developing political protests directed at the President’s restrictive travel ban and his proposed actions against immigrants.

I spoke for the first half hour and provided a First Amendment overview (what I termed a “primer”) as well as concrete suggestions for political protestors.

In the second and third half-hours two highly regarded Chicago attorneys, Molly Armour and Ed Mullen, discussed their experiences with political protests and law enforcement. They also offered advice to protestors.

The final half hour, which was quite dynamic, addressed questions from a very engaged audience.

If you are interested in the dos and don’ts of political protest, then this is the video for you. I recommend it highly.

Here is the link: https://kentlaw.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=fc5b4a7c-841e-4db0-a43f-a9d7fad63f6d

I invite you to follow me on Twitter: @NahmodLaw

Written by snahmod

March 19, 2017 at 9:47 pm

Posted in First Amendment

A Section 1983 Primer (12B): Survival and Wrongful Death–What Happens When a Section 1983 Plaintiff Dies or Has Been Killed

The immediately preceding post addressed the section 1988 background of survival and wrongful death claims based on section 1983. It included a discussion of Robertson v. Wegmann, the leading Supreme Court decision dealing with survival of section 1983 claims.

This follow-up post primarily deals with wrongful death.

Background 

While both state survival statutes and state wrongful death statutes reverse contrary common law rules, their purposes are different. Survival statutes allow the cause of action to survive regardless of the death of the plaintiff (or defendant). Wrongful death statutes, by contrast, provide for causes of action to arise in and for the benefit of certain designated persons in order to compensate them for pecuniary losses resulting from a decedent’s death. Furthermore, for wrongful death actions the defendant’s conduct must necessarily be the cause of death; this is not required for survival.

The Leading Case of Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401 (5th Cir. 1961)

In a leading decision on survival and wrongful death, the Fifth Circuit, in Brazier v. Cherry, drew no distinction for section 1983 and section 1988 purposes between the applicability of Georgia’s survival statute and its wrongful death statute. The case concerned allegations that police brutality had caused decedent’s beating and death. In concluding that section 1988 required the application of Georgia law in favor of the plaintiff, who was both the surviving widow and the administratrix of the decedent’s estate, the court treated survival and wrongful death concepts alike. Focusing on the “suitable remedies” language of section 1988, after dealing earlier with the “party injured” language of section 1983, the Fifth Circuit stated:

The term “suitable remedies” … comprehends those facilities available in local state law but unavailable in federal legislation, which will permit the full effectual enforcement of the policy sought to be achieved by the statutes. And in a very real sense the utilization of local death and survival statutes does not do more than create an effective remedy. … To make the policy of the Civil Rights Statutes fully effectual, regard has to be taken of both classes of victims.

Thus far, the Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of wrongful death and section 1983. As noted in the preceding post, it simply commented in Robertson, a survival case, that abatement of a section 1983 cause of action where the defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff’s death was a different issue from that in case before it where death was not so caused. Still, as a matter of section 1983 policy, Brazier‘s approach to the use of wrongful death statutes seems sound and has been generally followed in the circuits. Consider: if a wrongful death statute could not be used for section 1983 actions, it would follow that where a defendant’s unconstitutional conduct immediately caused the death of the decedent, the typical survival statute would also not be applicable. The absurd result would be no vindication at all of the section 1983 claim. Thus, the Fifth Circuit appropriately observed in Brazier:

“[I]t defies history to conclude that Congress purposely meant to assure to the living freedom from such unconstitutional deprivations, but that, with like precision, it meant to withdraw the protection of civil rights statutes against the peril of death.”

Significantly, Brazier‘s reasoning can apply to the use of state survival law as well. Indeed, because the claim in such cases is for the decedent’s loss of his or her life and related damages,the “fit” between survival law and section 1983 may even be better than that between wrongful death law and section 1983. That may be why some circuit court decisions tend in fact to use state survival law in section 1983 cases and confront the “inconsistency” issue–addressed below–regarding damages limitations head on.

Comment

The general rule is that state wrongful death statutes can be used to vindicate a decedent’s constitutional deprivations caused by the conduct of section 1983 defendants that caused his or her death.

In addition–and this is important–to the extent that state wrongful death statutes (and survival statutes) limit the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages, those limitations have been held to be inconsistent with the policies underlying section 1983 and thus found inapplicable to section 1983 wrongful death claims. See, e.g., Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984), overruled in part on other grounds, Russ v. Watts, 414 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2005), and Berry v. City of Muskogee, 900 F.2d 1489 (10th Cir. 1990). Both of these cases soundly hold that federal damages rules for compensatory and punitive damages govern for both survival and wrongful death claims brought under section 1983.

I discuss these and other cases in section 4:69 of Nahmod, CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES LITIGATION: THE LAW OF SECTION 1983 (4th ed. 2016)(West).

I invite you to follow me on Twitter: @NahmodLaw

Written by snahmod

February 13, 2017 at 10:21 am

Posted in Uncategorized