White v. Bagshaw

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia grants Metropolitan Police Department officers’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in a § 1983 action arising from the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. The court holds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff failed to identify clearly established precedent showing that the alleged use of force violated the Fourth Amendment. The court also rejects the related supervisory-liability claim.

Holdings

1. Bagshaw and McAllister are entitled to qualified immunity because, even assuming their conduct violated White's Fourth Amendment rights, White failed to show that the asserted right was clearly established in the specific context of officers using force against participants in the January 6 Capitol riot inside the Lower West Terrace Tunnel.
2. Bagshaw is entitled to qualified immunity on White's supervisory-responsibility claim because White failed to establish a constitutional violation and a clearly established right underlying the excessive-force claim.
3. The Court declined to construe White's allegations as a Fifth Amendment due-process claim because a party may not amend a complaint through an opposition brief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bagshaw and McAllister were entitled to qualified immunity on White's Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims because White failed to identify clearly established precedent placing the alleged conduct beyond debate.
2. Whether Bagshaw was entitled to qualified immunity on White's § 1983 supervisory-responsibility claim.
3. Whether the Court should construe White's excessive-force allegations as a Fifth Amendment due-process claim when that theory was raised for the first time in her opposition brief.

Disposition

other