Rich v. Palko

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that officers had violated her son's, Gavrila Dupuis-Mays, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and held that the officers did not violate Dupuis-Mays's constitutional rights and were entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful detention claim. Furthermore, even assuming the officers did violate Dupuis-Mays's constitutional rights, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that clearly established law put the officers on notice that their conduct was illegal. Rather, established law in this circuit suggested that the officers were acting legally by relying on the representations of credible persons that Dupuis-Mays met the statutory requirements for apprehension.The court also held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim that the officers violated Dupuis-Mays's Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force to restrain him in the triage room. In this case, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the officers violated clearly established law by moving Dupuis-Mays—who was increasingly aggravated, repeatedly spitting at the officers, and failing to comply with instructions to stop—to the floor, even though he collided with a cabinet on the way down. Finally, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim that they prepared false police reports. View "Rich v. Palko" on Justia Law