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UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?