If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
June 6, 2020

Table of Contents

King v. Pridmore

Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

The Response to President Trump’s Shameless Religious Photo Op Gives Me Hope for the Future

MARCI A. HAMILTON

verdict post

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton praises the response of liberal clergy in response to President Trump’s seemingly opportunistic photo op in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. Hamilton calls upon these religious leaders to continue speaking out loudly in the name of inclusion, love, and truth.

Read More

US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Opinions

King v. Pridmore

Docket: 18-14245

Opinion Date: June 5, 2020

Judge: Vinson

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against three police officers after plaintiff was shot and seriously injured while he was assisting the police apprehend a fugitive. Plaintiff alleged a section 1983 claim for involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and a violation of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as claims for negligence, wantonness, failure to train/supervise, and false imprisonment under Alabama state law. In this case, the officers told plaintiff that they would "throw some charges on [him]" if he did not agree to participate in a ruse to capture the fugitive. Plaintiff claimed that the threat of physical violence is what ultimately overcame his will and forced him to participate in the ruse. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers based on qualified immunity, holding that the officers did not violate the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendment. Even assuming that there was a constitutional violation, the court held that it was not clearly established at the time that all objectively reasonable officers in their position would have known that what they said to plaintiff violated the Constitution's prohibition against involuntary servitude or its "nebulous" doctrine of substantive due process. Likewise, the court held that the officers are entitled to discretionary-function immunity on the state law claims.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043