Summary
This memorandum opinion and order from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina addresses plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint and defendants' motion for summary judgment in a civil rights action arising from a deputy sheriff's shooting of a dog on private property. The court grants the motion to amend, finding good cause under Rule 16 and rejecting arguments of futility regarding new supervisory and Monell claims. Regarding summary judgment, the court denies the motion on the Fourth Amendment search and seizure and unreasonable use of force claims due to genuine disputes of material fact, but grants it on the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Sanchez's entry onto the backyard and back deck exceeded the scope of the knock‑and‑talk exception and constituted an unlawful search.
- Whether the shooting of the dog was a reasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether the plaintiffs’ due‑process claim is cognizable.
- Whether Sanchez is entitled to qualified immunity from the §1983 claims.
- Whether Sheriff Seabolt is protected by sovereign immunity.
- Whether public‑official immunity bars the state tort claims.
- Whether summary judgment is appropriate on the various claims.
Holdings
- Leave to amend the complaint is granted; the amended complaint is deemed timely filed as of March 28, 2025.
- Summary judgment is granted on the plaintiffs' second cause of action (Trespass) and the claim is dismissed.
- Summary judgment is granted on the plaintiffs' fourth cause of action (U.S.C. §1983 and Fourteenth Amendment due‑process claim) and the claim is dismissed.
- Summary judgment is denied on the remaining Fourth Amendment, qualified‑immunity, public‑official‑immunity, and state‑law tort claims.
Key quotations
“The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.””
“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability under §1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”
Factual background
Deputy Marbely Sanchez entered the Freeman residence's backyard and back deck after knocking on the front door to serve a civil show‑cause order. While on the deck she shot the family’s dog, Major, claiming the dog posed an imminent threat. The Freemans dispute the distance and threat posed by the dog.
Procedural history
The case was filed in the Middle District of North Carolina alleging §1983 and state tort claims arising from a deputy's shooting of a dog. The parties moved for leave to amend the complaint and for summary judgment. The court ruled on both motions.
Remand instructions
Plaintiffs shall file the amended complaint within five (5) days of the order; the amended complaint is deemed filed as of March 28, 2025.