Summary
This United States District Court order denies defendants' motion for reconsideration of a prior ruling denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The case arises from a plaintiff's § 1983 claims alleging excessive force and unlawful seizure during an encounter with a Milwaukee police officer. The court found that material factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's level of resistance and threat posed at the time of the takedown preclude a grant of qualified immunity at this stage. Consequently, the motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) was denied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in denying Defendants' motion for reconsideration of its qualified‑immunity ruling.
- Whether there was a manifest error of law warranting reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
Holdings
- The motion for reconsideration is denied because the district court did not commit a manifest error of law; material factual disputes preclude a ruling on qualified immunity at this stage.
Key quotations
““a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.””
““existence of material factual disputes about the circumstances surrounding Officer Seelow’s takedown maneuver precludes a ruling on qualified immunity at this juncture.””
Factual background
On March 13, 2017, Roxanne Schlender was encountered by Officer Charles Seelow at the Potawatomi Bingo Casino. Video footage shows Schlender pulling her arm from the officer's grip and making kicking motions, but the footage is unclear about whether she was actively resisting immediately before the takedown.
Procedural history
Plaintiff sued Officer Seelow and the City of Milwaukee under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The district court denied Defendants' summary‑judgment motion on qualified immunity and allowed the excessive‑force claim to proceed. Defendants then moved for reconsideration of the qualified‑immunity denial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The court denied the motion.