Raub v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 29 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–1277.,14–1277. |
| Citation | 785 F.3d 876 |
| Parties | Brandon RAUB, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Michael CAMPBELL, Defendant–Appellee, and Daniel Lee Bowen; Russell Morgan Granderson; Lloyd C. Chaser; Latarsha Mason; Michael Paris ; Terry Granger; United States of America; John Does 1–10, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED:William H. Hurd, Troutman Sanders LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
Stylian Paul Parthemos, County Attorney's Office for the County of Chesterfield, Chesterfield, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Stephen C. Piepgrass, Troutman Sanders LLP, Richmond, Virginia; John W. Whitehead, Douglas R. McKusick, The Rutherford Institute, Charlottesville, Virginia; Anthony F. Troy, Charles A. Zdebski, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jeffrey L. Mincks, Julie A.C. Seyfarth, County Attorney's Office for the County of Chesterfield, Chesterfield, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge DIAZ wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge TRAXLER and Judge THACKER joined.
In the summer of 2012, Brandon Raub composed a series of ominous Facebook posts, which drew the attention of his former fellow Marines. They contacted the FBI expressing concern, and the FBI—in coordination with local law enforcement—dispatched a team to Raub's Virginia home. After speaking with Raub, and on the recommendation of Michael Campbell, a local mental health evaluator, the local officers detained Raub for further evaluation. Campbell then interviewed Raub and, on the basis of that interview and Raub's Facebook posts, petitioned a state magistrate judge for a temporary detention order, which was granted. Raub was subsequently hospitalized against his will for seven days.
Raub filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages and injunctive relief against Campbell for violating his Fourth Amendment and First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to Campbell on the basis of qualified immunity, concluding that Campbell acted reasonably in recommending Raub's seizure and further detention. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In reviewing de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, we recite the facts and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party—in this case, Raub. Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir.2011) (en banc).
In August 2012, two Marine veterans who had served with Raub during his deployment to Iraq contacted the FBI. They were concerned by Raub's “increasingly threatening” Facebook posts. J.A. 532. In an email, one of the Marines, Howard Bullen, provided specific examples of Raub's posts:
J.A. 532–33. Although Bullen characterized Raub's statements as “typical extremist language,” he also told the FBI that Raub “genuinely believes in this and is not simply looking for attention.” Id. at 533. Bullen expressed concern that Raub's “threatening and action-oriented” rhetoric had worsened in recent months. Id.
The FBI decided to interview Raub.1 Supported by a team comprised of federal and local law enforcement officers, Detective Michael Paris and FBI Agent Terry Granger approached Raub at his home and questioned him about his Facebook posts.
Raub, wearing only a pair of white shorts and speaking to the officers through the screen door of his home, admitted that he wrote the posts. Although he never threatened violence, Raub refused to answer directly when asked if he intended to commit violence. At one point, he told Paris and Granger, “[W]e will all see very soon what all of this means.” J.A. 193.
Paris observed that Raub's demeanor shifted wildly over the course of the conversation, alternating between calm and “extremely intense and emotional.” Id. Raub questioned Paris and Granger about their knowledge of government conspiracy theories—including Raub's theories that the government launched a missile into the Pentagon on 9/11 and that the government exposes citizens to radioactive thorium—and wondered why the officers were not arresting government officials for these crimes.
After interviewing Raub for nearly half an hour, Paris and Granger discussed whether they should detain Raub for a mental health evaluation. To that end, Paris spoke by telephone with Michael Campbell, a certified mental health “prescreener” with the local emergency services agency. Paris described Raub's Facebook posts and told Campbell that Raub appeared “preoccupied and distracted” during the interview, with rapid mood swings and roving, intermittent eye contact. J.A. 574. In addition, Paris expressed concern about Raub's military weapons training and his potential access to weapons.2 Campbell, believing that Raub might be psychotic, recommended that Paris detain Raub for an evaluation.
Raub was placed in custody and transported to the local jail.3 There, he was handcuffed to a bench in the jail's intake room. Because Raub was not allowed to retrieve his clothes before being detained, he was both shirtless and shoeless when Campbell arrived to speak with him. Campbell asked Raub about the Facebook posts, as well as Raub's beliefs in government conspiracies and an impending revolution. Although Raub said little in response—declining after twelve minutes to answer any further questions—when asked whether he felt justified in following through with the threats that had caused his detention, Raub replied, “I certainly do, wouldn't you?” J.A. 576. In addition, he told Campbell, “the revolution is coming,” and “if you [k]new of what was coming[,] wouldn[']t you try to stop it[?]” J.A. 705. When asked why he thought the authorities had approached him about his posts, Raub replied, “because they know I am on to them.” J.A. 523.
Campbell also noted that Raub appeared preoccupied and distracted and had difficulty answering questions. This behavior, combined with Raub's professed belief in an impending revolution that he was destined to lead, prompted Campbell to conclude that Raub might be paranoid and delusional, and that he was “responding to some internal stimulus.” J.A. 576.
After speaking with Raub, Campbell read the email that Bullen had sent to the FBI. Campbell also spoke with Raub's mother, who said that she shared her son's beliefs and had noticed no change in his behavior. Campbell nonetheless concluded that Raub met the statutory standard for involuntary temporary detention,4 given Raub's “recent change in ... behavior[ ] and more severe posts about revolution with plans for action,” as reflected in the email. J.A. 705.
Consequently, Campbell petitioned for and received a temporary detention order from a magistrate judge. Raub was taken to a hospital, where a psychologist examined him and agreed that Raub exhibited symptoms of psychosis
. Hospital staff thereafter petitioned the state court for an order of involuntary admission for treatment. After a hearing, held four days after Raub was detained, the court ordered that Raub be admitted for thirty days; however, just three days later, the court ordered Raub released from the hospital, concluding that “the petition [was] ... devoid of any factual allegations.” J.A. 879.5
Raub subsequently filed suit against multiple defendants, alleging claims under state and federal law. He amended his complaint twice, with the Second Amended Complaint alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against only one defendant—Campbell. In addition to damages, Raub also sought to enjoin Campbell from seizing Raub in the future or retaliating against him based on the exercise of his constitutional rights. The district court granted Campbell's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity and denied Raub's request for injunctive relief.
Raub appeals, pressing three arguments. First, he contends that Campbell violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures by recommending that Raub be taken into custody for a mental health evaluation and by petitioning the state court for a temporary detention order. Second, Raub avers that Campbell violated his First Amendment right of free speech by basing his conclusion that Raub was delusional on Raub's Facebook posts and his responses to Campbell's questions. Finally, Raub contends that, even if his constitutional claims fail, he is still entitled to injunctive relief. We address each argument in turn.
We review de novo the district court's decision to grant Campbell summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. West v. Murphy, 771 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir.2014). Generally, qualified immunity operates to protect law enforcement and other government officials from civil damages liability for alleged constitutional violations stemming from their discretionary functions. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638–39, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). The protection extends to “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). Indeed, as we have emphasized repeatedly, “[o]fficials are not liable for bad guesses in gray areas; they are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogan v. Cherokee Cnty.
...of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation." Raub v. Campbell, 785 F.3d 876, 881 (4th Cir. 2015). The order in which to decide these issues is left to the Court's discretion. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236, ......
-
Nance v. City of Albemarle
...from civil damages liability for alleged constitutional violations stemming from their discretionary functions." Raub v. Campbell, 785 F.3d 876, 880-81 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638-39, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) ). "The defense of qualified imm......
-
Thorpe v. Clarke
...because FCA liability depends on whether a government official "knowingly violate[s] the law" (citations omitted)); Raub v. Campbell , 785 F.3d 876, 884 n.8 (4th Cir. 2015) ("a law enforcement officer's omission of material facts from a warrant affidavit deprives him of qualified immunity .......
-
Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't
...relationship between the plaintiff's protected activity and the defendant's conduct" Booker, 855 F.3d at 537 ; see Raub v. Campbell, 785 F.3d 876, 885 (4th Cir. 2015).As for the first element, the court assumes without deciding that Sharpe engaged in constitutionally-protected free speech w......