Sheila Lee v. Officer Molly O’Hara, in her individual capacity, Officer Richard J. Rodriguez, in his individual capacity, Officer Don Bell, in his individual capacity, and Krista Zentner, in her individual capacity

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Sheila Lee’s action arising from her December 25, 2020 encounter with Fayetteville police officers. The court rejects or grants qualified immunity on claims involving unlawful detention, false arrest, excessive force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, assault, gross negligence, and related state-law claims. The clerk is directed to enter judgment for defendants and close the case.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment must be granted when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; speculative or conclusory allegations and a mere scintilla of evidence do not defeat summary judgment.
2. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment unlawful-detention and false-arrest claim and on her state-law false-arrest or false-imprisonment, malicious-prosecution, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims because plaintiff failed to respond to defendants’ arguments and thereby conceded that summary judgment was appropriate.
3. Qualified immunity protected defendants from liability on plaintiff’s federal excessive-force claims because plaintiff failed to establish a constitutional violation, and, as to the vehicle-removal theory, failed also to show that the asserted right was clearly established.
4. The officers did not use constitutionally excessive force when handcuffing plaintiff, and they were entitled to qualified immunity on this theory.
5. The evidence did not establish a Fourth Amendment violation when Officer O’Hara held plaintiff’s arm while another officer removed plaintiff from the vehicle; alternatively, the asserted right was not clearly established.
6. Plaintiff failed to create a genuine dispute that any defendant punched her in the mouth, and no excessive force claim could proceed on that theory.
7. The use of a spit mask on plaintiff did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
8. Defendants were entitled to public-official immunity and summary judgment on plaintiff’s remaining state-law assault and gross-negligence claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment unlawful-detention and false-arrest claim after plaintiff failed to respond to defendants’ arguments.
2. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s state-law false-arrest or false-imprisonment, malicious-prosecution, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims after plaintiff failed to respond.
3. Whether the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment by handcuffing plaintiff, removing her from her vehicle, or allegedly striking her in the mouth.
4. Whether the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by placing a spit mask on plaintiff after she spit blood while restrained.
5. Whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal excessive-force claims.
6. Whether defendants were protected by North Carolina public-official immunity from plaintiff’s remaining state-law assault and gross-negligence claims.

Disposition

other