The Court instead grants the petition for certiorari, vacates the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and remands the case to give the court the opportunity to employ an inquiry that clearly attends to the facts and circumstances in answering those questions in the first instance. [ii] Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). 1660 L St. NW, 12th Floor , Washington, DC 20036 Lombardo v What the Eighth Circuit characterized as insignificant were these factual differences between the two cases.1*. filed. Jody Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, No. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals applied the correct legal standard and made a judgment call on a sensitive question. Gilberts parents sued, alleging that the officers had used excessive force against him. Officers placed pressure on Gilberts back even though St. Louis instructs officers that pressing down on the back of a prone subject can cause suffocation. WebJODY LOMBARDO, ET AL. JODY LOMBARDO, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, . 2020) Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary The Eighth Circuit affirmed the magistrate judge's grant of Specifically, Lombardo argues that, unlike Ryan, in which the detainee was held in prone restraint for approximately three minutes until he was handcuffed, . . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit dismissed the claims, holding that no reasonable jury could find that officers had used excessive force and therefore the officers could not be held liable. While Gilbert continued to struggle, two officers shackled his legs together. He was transported to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Lombardo v. City of St. Louis - Casetext ", "requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case. 8th Circuit (1 box). The Court noted that it was unclear if the 8th Circuit thought that the use of the prone restraint was Constitutional irrespective of the type of prone restraint, the intensity of the restraint process, the duration of the prone restraint, or the surrounding circumstances as long as the individual appears to resist the officers efforts to subdue him or her. Such a per se rule would contravene the careful, context-specific analysis required by precedent. Responding officers struggled with Gilbert but eventually brought him to the ground and placed him in handcuffs and leg shackles. Instead, it claims to be uncertain whether the Court of Appeals actually applied the correct legal standard, and for that reason it vacates the judgment below and remands the case. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the incident. This standard must be applied in a fact-sensitive manner and not '"mechanically."' Supreme Court Decides Lombardo v Lombardo v. City of St. Louis SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. The Court noted that there is no mechanical application of this standard but instead a court must pay careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Document Cited J. Brent Dulle, Myles Durkin McDonnell, St. Louis City Counselor's Office, H. Anthony Relys, Attorney General Of Missouri, St. Louis, MO, for Defendants. On June 28, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lombardo v. St. Louis, 20-391, holding per curium that excessive force precedent requires courts to employ a The identification of officials having final policymaking authority is a question of state (including local) law, rather than a question of fact for the jury. Record received from the U.S.C.A. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Supreme Court Summarily Reverses Against Officers in Qualified Lombardo Record returned to the U.S.D.C. Gilbert reared back, kicking the officers and hitting his head on the bench. JODY LOMBARDO, ET AL. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, ET AL. United States Supreme Court; 1,200+ attorneys and consulting professionals, Located across the U.S., and in London and Shanghai, California Business Contact Privacy Policy. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989).2 "A court (judge or jury) cannot apply this standard mechanically." After 15 minutes of struggling in this position, Gilberts breathing became abnormal and he stopped moving. WebLombardo et al v. Saint Louis City et al Doc. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the incident. necessary to a conclusion that a use of force was constitutionally excessive. We find these differences to be insignificant. The severity of the security problem at issue. Three officers responded and entered Gilberts cell. The court now determines that the defendant police officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the right in question - to be free from the use of a prone restraint under the circumstances presented - was not clearly established at the time of the plaintiffs' son's death; the City is not liable for a policy of deliberate indifference in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right. This Courts per curiam refers to one other statement in the opinion below. In assessing a claim of excessive force, courts ask "whether the officers actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them." It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website. But when this sentence is read in context, what it plainly means is not that the duration of the officers use of force or the fact that Gilbert had been handcuffed and shackled were irrelevant but that certain factual differences between this case and Ryan were not significant in the sense that they did not call for a different result. Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! Lombardo v. St. Louis, 594 U.S. ___ (2021) - Justia US filed. Six officers moved Gilbert to a prone position, face down on the floor. PRIVACY POLICY You can explore additional available newsletters here. APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS - Supreme Court of the filed. By that time, six officers were present. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. After 15 minutes of struggling in this position, Gilbert's breathing became abnormal and he stopped moving. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed on different grounds, holding that the officers did not. 10th Circuit. Lombardo v. City of St. Louis | No. 19-1469 - CaseMine The officers rolled Gilbert onto his side and then his back to check for a pulse. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed on different grounds, holding that the officers did not. Such a per se rule would contravene the careful, context-specific analysis required by this Courts excessive force precedent. Jody LOMBARDO, et al. Jody LOMBARDO; Bryan Gilbert, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS; Ronald Bergmann, Sergeant, individually and in his official capacity as an officer for the St. Louis City Police Department; Joe Stuckey, Officer, individually and in his official capacity as an officer for the St. Louis City Police Department; Paul Wactor, Officer, United States District Court (Maryland), United States District Courts. Kingsley v. Hendrickson , 576 U.S. 389, 397, 135 S.Ct. 20391, Decision below 956 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. After the detainee resisted, he was handcuffed and put in leg irons, and then placed prone on the floor, face down, with four officers applying pressure to hold him down. Specifically, after being handcuffed, he thrashed his head on the concrete bench, causing him to suffer a gash on his forehead, and he continued to violently thrash and kick after being leg-shackled. Brief of respondents City of St. Louis, et al. 361 F.Supp.3d 886. Three officers responded and entered Gilbert's cell. ", The court cited Circuit precedent for the proposition that, "the use of prone restraint is not objectively unreasonable when a detainee actively resists officer directives and efforts to subdue the detainee. on October 26, 2020. Jon Loevy, Steve Art, David B. Owens, Ruth Z. The officers moved Gilbert to a prone position, face down on the floor. We instead grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Eighth Circuit, and remand the case to give the court the opportunity to employ an inquiry that clearly attends to the facts and circumstances in answering those questions in the first instance. WebView 20-391_2c83.pdf from LAW 4041 at Cornell University. The United States Supreme Court laid out the facts of the case as follows: On the afternoon of December 8, 2015, St. Louis police officers arrested Nicholas Gilbert for trespassing in a condemned building and failing to appear in court for a traffic ticket. WebParties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case Jody Lombardo, et al., Petitioners v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., case number 20-391, from Supreme Court Court. See this Courts Rule 10. Jody LOMBARDO, et al. Read in context, its meaning is apparent. 2466, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015). The lower courts opinion could be read to treat Gilberts ongoing resistance as controlling as a matter of law. Thus, assuming, as the Supreme Court has, that a court of appeals decision may constitute clearly established law, the precedent in this area is insufficient to demonstrate that the facts, in this case, show a violation of a clearly established right of a detainee to be free from prone restraint while resisting. The court affirmed the district courts ruling and concluded that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the right in question was not clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs sons death and the City is not liable for a policy of deliberate indifference in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right. Stop. After 15 minutes of struggling in this position, Gilberts breathing became abnormal and he stopped moving. The Court, unfortunately, is unwilling to face up to the choice between denying the petition (and bearing the criticism that would inevitably elicit) and granting plenary review (and doing the work that would entail).