Bradford v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 01 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-1767,16-1767 |
| Citation | 855 F.3d 890 |
| Parties | JaQuan BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Christopher PALMER; Richard Shults, Defendants Ilona Avery; Joan Gerbo, Defendants-Appellees Revae Gabriel; Deb Wilkins, Defendants Robert Hendricks; Deborah Hanus, Defendants-Appellees Charles Krogmeier ; Sally Titus; Jeanne Nesbit, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Jeffrey M. Lipman, of West Des Moines, IA. The following attorney(s) appeared on the appellant brief; Marc Harding, of Des Moines, IA.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Gretchen Kraemer, AAG, of Des Moines, IA.
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff JaQuan Bradford was civilly committed to the Iowa Juvenile Home for over two years as a child in need of assistance.
He later brought this action against employees of the home for allegedly violating his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants based on qualified immunity. Bradford appeals, and we reverse and remand.
JaQuan Bradford was civilly confined at the Iowa Juvenile Home between the ages of 12 and 14. He had a history of severe behavioral problems, including assaulting others, and these problems continued while he was at the home. A juvenile court supervised his stay and received regular reports on it. Bradford alleges that he was kept in seclusion for significant periods of time while he was at the home.
After reaching the age of majority, Bradford brought this action against employees of the home for allegedly violating his constitutional rights by housing him in prolonged solitary confinement, failing to educate him, and allowing him to be sexually abused. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court decided that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Bradford could "not prove and has not produced any evidence that defendants should have been aware of a breach of a clearly established law regarding [his] stay at [the home] while at the same time the juvenile court, sitting in regular review proceedings, was finding nothing wrong regarding [his] stay" at the home. Summary judgment was granted to defendants, and Bradford appeals.
We review the "grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and making every reasonable inference in his favor." McPherson v. O'Reilly Auto., Inc. , 491 F.3d 726, 730 (8th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is warranted "if the record shows there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Id.
A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability unless "the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right" and "that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." Winslow v. Smith , 696 F.3d 716, 730–31 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Brown v. City of Golden Valley , 574 F.3d 491, 496 (8th Cir. 2009) ). A court may take up these questions in either order. Id. at 731. Qualified immunity thus "protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’ " Mullenix v. Luna , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 305, 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) (per curiam) (quoting Malley v. Briggs , 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) ).
The district court held as a matter of law that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because "the juvenile court, sitting in regular review proceedings, was finding nothing wrong" with Bradford's confinement at the home. The juvenile court, however, could only have approved the conditions of his confinement if it had been informed about them. The parties agree that the juvenile court supervised Bradford's confinement under Iowa Code § 232.95. That provision only requires the juvenile court to review the duration of a child's commitment. It does not establish that the juvenile court knew the conditions in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benner v. St. Paul Pub. Sch.
...background "in the light most favorable" to Benner, and will "mak[e] every reasonable inference" in Benner's favor. Bradford v. Palmer , 855 F.3d 890, 892 (8th Cir. 2017).A. Relevant Events Prior to the 2014-2015 School Year1. The "Suspension Gap" and SPPS's "Racial Equity" ResponseBefore d......
-
Z.J. v. Kan City Bd. of Police Comm'rs
...summary-judgment standard requires us to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Z.J., not the other way around. Bradford v. Palmer, 855 F.3d 890, 892 (8th Cir. 2017).Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Z.J., a reasonable jury could conclude that using the SWAT team under th......
- United States v. Benedict
-
Bradford v. Hanus
...to this Court with instructions to conduct a "more thorough review of defendants' motion for summary judgment." Bradford v. Palmer, 855 F.3d 890, 893 (8th Cir. 2017). On May 1, 2017, this case was assigned to the Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Court Judge, who referred de......