Sloan Pleasants v. Town of Louisa

Filing

UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00032-NKM-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court. [999537749]. [14-1320]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-1320 Doc: 37 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 6 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1320 SLOAN PLEASANTS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ROBERT RIGSBY, sued in his individual capacity, Defendant – Appellee, and TOWN OF LOUISA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00032-NKM-RSB) Argued: January 28, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Shedd wrote the opinion in which Judge Duncan and Judge Keenan joined. ARGUED: Jeffrey Edward Fogel, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Maurice Scott Fisher, Jr., HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Steven D. Rosenfield, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Jeremy D. Capps, David P. Corrigan, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & Appeal: 14-1320 Doc: 37 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 6 WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 14-1320 Doc: 37 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 6 SHEDD, Circuit Judge: Sloan Pleasants appeals from the summary judgment entered against her arrested on her, her in claim that violation of Officer the Robert Fourth Rigsby Amendment. falsely For the following reasons, we affirm. I. Pleasants filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Officer Rigsby, of the Town of Louisa Police Department, unlawfully entered her home and arrested her for assault and battery against a family member. Pleasants asserted causes of action against the Town of Louisa for failure to train and against Officer Rigsby for unlawful entry, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and related state law claims. The Town of Louisa and Officer Rigsby moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant discovery on the dismissed all of to Rule 12(b)(6). unlawful-entry Pleasants’ After claim, * claims. In allowing the a district prior limited court opinion, we reversed the dismissal of the false-arrest claim and affirmed the dismissal of all other claims. See Pleasants v. Town of Louisa, 524 F. App’x 891 (4th Cir. 2013). We remanded the falsearrest claim for further proceedings because, at the motion to * The court’s use of this discovery made the disposition on the unlawful-entry claim a matter of summary judgment. 3 Appeal: 14-1320 Doc: 37 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 4 of 6 dismiss stage, Pleasants’ complaint stated a plausible claim for relief. On remand, and in light of a more developed factual record, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Rigsby on the false-arrest claim. The court held that Officer Rigsby was entitled to qualified immunity. Pleasants now appeals that decision. II. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Rigsby. Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to Pleasants, the non-moving party. Id. Pleasants argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Officer Rigsby because the court improperly based its qualified immunity analysis on disputed facts and inferences drawn in favor of Officer Rigsby. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no error. The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Qualified immunity is a two-step inquiry 4 Appeal: 14-1320 Doc: 37 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 5 of 6 “that asks first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Henry, 652 F.3d at 531 (quoting Melgar ex rel. Melgar v. Greene, 593 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir. 2010)) (internal quotation mark omitted). We need not, however, address these inquiries in that order. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). After considering the summary judgment record, the district court determined that Officer Rigsby is entitled to qualified immunity on Pleasants’ false-arrest claim. Exercising its discretion, the court proceeded directly to the second prong of the qualified immunity test. J.A. 161. The court found that regardless of whether probable cause existed for the arrest, a reasonable officer could have believed Officer Rigsby’s actions to be lawful, information in that light of Officer clearly Rigsby established possessed. law J.A. and the 161; see Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987). Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, we find no error in the district court’s conclusion that Officer Rigsby is entitled to qualified immunity. The summary judgment record demonstrates that at the time of the arrest, Officer Rigsby was faced with a situation involving a distraught and frightened child who was not being allowed to freely talk to others. Officer Rigsby knew that K.P.’s father had complained that Pleasants had prevented him from talking 5 Appeal: 14-1320 with Doc: 37 K.P., Filed: 03/02/2015 and at Rigsby’s attempts Further, Officer violence described the to by scene, speak Rigsby Pg: 6 of 6 Pleasants to could K.P. was K.P. interrupted on reasonably more several believe than normal Officer occasions. that the parental discipline. Based on these facts, a reasonable officer could have believed that Officer Rigsby’s arrest of Pleasants was lawful. III. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Officer Rigsby on the false-arrest claim. AFFIRMED 6

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?