Summary
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to a sheriff’s deputy sued for allegedly using excessive force during an arrest. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review factual disputes on interlocutory appeal but could assess whether, accepting the plaintiff’s version of the facts, the alleged conduct violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law. It concluded that repeatedly striking a surrendered, nonviolent misdemeanant could constitute excessive force under clearly established precedent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Fourth Circuit had interlocutory jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity when the district court based its ruling on disputed material facts.
- Whether, taking the disputed facts in the light most favorable to Barricks, Wright's alleged use of force violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right and therefore defeated qualified immunity.
Holdings
- The court of appeals has no jurisdiction to review a district court's determination that genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment, but it may review the legal question whether the facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff establish a violation of clearly established law.
- Taking the disputed facts in Barricks's favor, Wright's alleged conduct—slamming a surrendered, nonthreatening misdemeanant to the ground and striking him twelve times in the head—would violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law; Wright therefore was not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.
Key quotations
“Thus, the Supreme Court has held that a district court’s determination that material facts are in dispute is not appealable as a collateral order.” (7)
“The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures, including those made with excessive force.” (9)
“Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying qualified immunity.” (12)
Factual background
Deputy James Wright arrested Joshua Barricks after observing him skateboard on a public road and becoming suspicious that he might be intoxicated or using drugs. After Barricks fled into a store and then dropped to his knees with his hands behind his head, the parties disputed whether he had surrendered or continued resisting. Taking Barricks's version of the disputed facts, Wright pushed Barricks's face into the floor and punched him twelve times in the face, causing serious facial and intracerebral injuries, despite the absence of a weapon or other apparent threat.
Procedural history
Barricks sued Deputy Wright for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and for common-law battery. Wright moved for summary judgment, asserting that his force was reasonable and that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The Western District of Virginia denied summary judgment, finding disputed material facts and concluding that, if resolved in Barricks's favor, the alleged force violated clearly established law. Wright filed an interlocutory appeal.