Summary
This Second Circuit opinion reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a Stamford police officer sued for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort claims. While affirming the dismissal of state law claims based on governmental immunity and agreeing that genuine factual disputes exist regarding the officer's use of force, the appellate court vacates the grant of qualified immunity on the federal constitutional claim. The court remands the case, holding that disputed facts about the officer's observations and the severity of the emergency call preclude a ruling on whether the right was clearly established at the time of the incident.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Officer Estabrook is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged excessive‑force conduct under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
- Whether Estabrook is entitled to state governmental immunity under Connecticut law for the state‑law assault, battery and recklessness claims.
Holdings
- The district court’s grant of qualified immunity is vacated because genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment on the excessive‑force claim; the case is remanded for further proceedings.
- The district court’s grant of state governmental immunity is affirmed because Connecticut law provides discretionary‑function immunity to police officers absent proof of malice.
Key quotations
“We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (at end of opinion)
Factual background
Officer Steven Estabrook responded to a Code 30 call at a protest on August 8, 2020. He ran toward a small group of protesters, grabbed plaintiff Jere Eaton by her bra strap, lifted her into the air, pushed her backward several feet and dropped her on the pavement, causing head and neck injuries. The body‑camera footage shows the contact but does not clearly reveal what Estabrook saw beyond the immediate vicinity.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment to Estabrook on both his qualified‑immunity defense under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and on state‑law claims based on Connecticut governmental immunity. Eaton appealed the qualified‑immunity grant and the state‑law immunity determination.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.