Gray v. Cummings
917 F.3d 1 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force claim for using a Taser on a non-violent, mentally ill individual who is actively resisting arrest, if at the time of the incident, it was not clearly established by precedent that such specific conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- On May 2, 2013, Judith Gray, who has bipolar disorder, experienced a manic episode and was involuntarily committed to Athol Memorial Hospital.
- Approximately six hours later, Gray absconded from the hospital on foot, and hospital staff called the police to have her returned.
- Officer Thomas Cummings located Gray walking barefoot nearby, but she swore at him, refused to return to the hospital, and continued to walk away.
- After following Gray, Cummings closed the distance; Gray then stopped, turned, clenched her fists, and started walking toward him.
- Cummings, who was significantly larger than Gray, grabbed her shirt and took her to the ground.
- While on the ground, Gray tucked her arms under her chest and refused Cummings's commands to place her hands behind her back.
- After warning Gray that she would be tased and receiving a defiant response, Cummings applied a Taser in drive-stun mode to her back for four to six seconds, after which he was able to handcuff her.
Procedural Posture:
- Judith Gray sued Officer Thomas Cummings and the Town of Athol in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- Gray alleged excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and various state-law claims.
- After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court referred the motion to a magistrate judge, who issued a report and recommendation to grant the motion in its entirety.
- The magistrate judge found no constitutional or ADA violation and concluded that, in any event, Officer Cummings was entitled to qualified immunity.
- Gray filed objections to the magistrate judge's report.
- The district court conducted a de novo review, adopted the magistrate's recommendation, and granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Cummings was entitled to qualified immunity.
- Gray, the appellant, then appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does qualified immunity shield a police officer from an excessive force claim for using a Taser in drive-stun mode on a non-violent, mentally ill individual who is resisting a lawful seizure by refusing to be handcuffed?
Opinions:
Majority - Selya, Circuit Judge.
Yes. Qualified immunity shields the officer because the right not to be tased under these specific circumstances was not clearly established at the time of the incident. The court engaged in a two-part qualified immunity analysis. First, it determined that a reasonable jury could find that Officer Cummings's use of force was excessive and violated Gray's Fourth Amendment rights. The court reasoned that the 'Graham v. Connor' factors were mixed: the severity of any crime was minimal, a jury could find Gray posed no immediate threat, but she was actively resisting arrest. Second, the court held that even if the force was excessive, the right was not 'clearly established' in May 2013. The court found no controlling authority or consensus of persuasive authority that would have put a reasonable officer on notice that tasing a non-violent but actively resisting, mentally ill individual was unconstitutional. The cases cited by Gray were distinguishable because they involved suspects who had already complied or were not given a chance to comply, unlike Gray, who was actively non-compliant despite warnings. Therefore, Officer Cummings is shielded from liability.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for overcoming a qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases. It clarifies that for a right to be 'clearly established,' there must be precedent with highly similar facts, giving officers 'fair warning' that their conduct is unlawful. By granting immunity even while acknowledging that a jury could find the officer's actions unconstitutional, the court prioritizes protecting officers from liability in legally ambiguous situations. This ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs in the First Circuit to succeed on excessive force claims involving mentally ill individuals or the use of less-lethal weapons like Tasers unless the unconstitutionality of the specific action is already settled law.
