For purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a district court may properly view the facts in the light depicted by bodycam footage and its accompanying audio, to the extent the footage and audio blatantly contradict testimonial evidence” (emphasis in original.
Family members filed Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim for deprivation of familial association caused by officers shooting family member; court found conduct did not shock the conscience where decedent entered and fled from another’s home armed with knives.
Where facts were disputed as to whether decedent was “on the attack” against officer or turned away as shots in back suggested, and officer shot decedent six times without warning, officer not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment.
Plaintiffs were activists and members of the Sunset Activist Collective and associated with CopBlock, critical of law enforcement, who chalked anti-police messages on the sidewalks of Las Vegas and were arrested under the local graffiti statute; they filed suit for retaliatory arrest; court finds case falls within narrow exception of Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S.Ct.
Bivens remedy was available to federal prisoner who alleged that correctional officer labeled him a snitch to other prisoners, offered them a bounty to assault him, and failed to protect him from predictable assault by another prisoner; court reasons that “no special factors counsel hesitation” in making a “very modest expansion” of the Bivens remedy under the 8th Amendment recognized in Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980).
Force used in removing protestor from city council meeting was minimal, city had interest in forcibly removing protestor from meeting, although it was low, and balance between intrusion on protestor and city’s interests was reasonable, hence no violation of constitutional rights.
Although initial use of Taser was justified, continued use after subject was handcuffed and shackled and had stopped resisting violated clearly established law.
Law was not clearly established that officer’s enforcement of protest zones violated First Amendment, officer entitled to qualified immunity for preventing journalist from engaging with counterprotester.
Officers did not demonstrate objective unreasonableness or deliberate indifference when they failed to recognize that person arrested following stop for expired vehicle registration had overdosed on drugs, where she vomited, but denied withdrawing or detoxing, stated she had not eaten anything, stated she was sick, her stomach was turning, and she was pregnant, and officers found no drugs in her car.
Plaintiff had no cause of action under § 1983 against officer who allegedly lied during state administrative proceeding concerning suspension of plaintiff’s driver’s license; state provided sufficient postdeprivation process to foreclose procedural due process claim; officer’s conduct was unauthorized under Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984).