Danita McKenzie v. Thomas Cleveland, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama grants summary judgment to Deputies Thomas Cleveland and J. Adams in Danita McKenzie’s action arising from her arrest during a domestic-violence response. The court holds that the deputies were acting within their discretionary authority and concludes that the force used to restrain and handcuff McKenzie was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The opinion also addresses McKenzie’s state-law assault, battery, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims, although the provided text ends before the complete analysis is shown.

Holdings

1. A government official does not lose qualified immunity merely because the official allegedly violated a departmental policy or administrative procedure. Cleveland and Adams were acting within their discretionary authority because responding to a 911 call, apprehending a suspect, and making an arrest were within the duties and scope of their authority.
2. The deputies did not use excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Their use of force, including holding McKenzie's arm, striking her arm two or three times to release her grip on the doorknob, guiding her to the ground, and handcuffing her, was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
3. The unreasonable-seizure claim failed because Cleveland had at least arguable probable cause to arrest McKenzie for domestic violence.
4. The failure-to-intervene claim was resolved in favor of the defendants because McKenzie conceded the claim in her opposition to summary judgment.
5. The deputies were immune under Article I, § 14 of the Alabama Constitution from McKenzie's state-law assault and battery and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims because they acted within the line and scope of their duties.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cleveland and Adams were acting within their discretionary authority for purposes of qualified immunity despite an alleged failure to follow a departmental domestic-violence arrest manual.
2. Whether the deputies used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they restrained McKenzie, struck her arm, guided her to the ground, and handcuffed her.
3. Whether Cleveland had arguable probable cause to arrest McKenzie, defeating her Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure claim under qualified immunity.
4. Whether McKenzie's state-law assault and battery and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims were barred by Alabama constitutional immunity because the deputies acted within the line and scope of their duties.

Disposition

dismissed