Bobby Strickland v. Slidell et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana addresses defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and motion for partial summary judgment in Bobby Strickland’s § 1983 action arising from an alleged excessive-force arrest. The court concludes that Heck v. Humphrey does not categorically bar the excessive-force claims, permits the claims against Officer Esque and related state-law claims to proceed, and dismisses the claims against Officer Colgan on qualified-immunity and related grounds. The court also addresses claims involving spoliation of evidence, municipal liability, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

Holdings

1. Heck did not categorically bar Strickland's excessive-force claims because the alleged force could have occurred after the conduct underlying his resisting conviction and was temporally and conceptually distinct from that conviction.
2. Officer Esque was not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage because Strickland plausibly alleged that Esque repeatedly struck him with a metal flashlight while he was handcuffed, subdued, and no longer resisting.
3. Officer Colgan was entitled to qualified immunity because Strickland did not allege a cognizable injury caused by Colgan and, in any event, the alleged taser use was objectively reasonable under the circumstances and not clearly unlawful.
4. Officer Colgan was entitled to qualified immunity on the failure-to-intervene claim because Strickland failed to identify clearly established law requiring intervention under materially similar circumstances.
5. The assault and battery claims against Officer Esque survived because the alleged force was unreasonable, while the claims against Officer Colgan were dismissed because his taser use was a protected use of force and he was not alleged to have caused Strickland's injury.
6. The spoliation-of-evidence claim was dismissed without prejudice because the amended complaint alleged only conclusory intentional-destruction allegations and did not plausibly plead the required elements.
7. The Louisiana negligent hiring, retention, and vicarious-liability claims against the City of Slidell survived because Strickland pleaded sufficient facts to establish a duty and that Officer Esque acted in the course and scope of his employment.
8. Summary judgment was granted barring punitive damages against the City and punitive damages for the state-law claims, but denied as to punitive damages against Officer Esque on the § 1983 claims and as to attorney's fees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Heck v. Humphrey barred Strickland's § 1983 excessive-force claims because he pleaded guilty to resisting a police officer with force or violence.
2. Whether Officer Esque was entitled to qualified immunity on the alleged beating of Strickland while restrained and no longer resisting.
3. Whether Officer Colgan was entitled to qualified immunity on the alleged repeated use of a taser and failure-to-intervene claim.
4. Whether Strickland stated Louisiana assault and battery claims against Officers Esque and Colgan.
5. Whether Strickland plausibly pleaded spoliation of evidence against the officers.
6. Whether Strickland stated Louisiana negligent hiring, retention, and vicarious-liability claims against the City of Slidell.
7. Whether summary judgment was proper on punitive damages and attorney's fees.

Disposition

other