North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Dunston v. Harrison (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-02-0098, 30 pp.) (James C. Fox, Sr.J.) 5:11-cv-00747; E.D.N.C. Holding: Although the court has not found a case addressing the appropriate use of force when a handcuffed inmate attempts to physically assault a detention ...

McAfee v. Boczar The 4th Circuit reduces an attorney’s fee award of $322,340.50 to a flat fee of $100,000, in this suit in which the plaintiff won a jury award of $2,943.60 for her claim that defendant deputy sheriff violated her Fourth Amendment rights by arresting her without probable cause to believe the plaintiff had violated a Virginia statute requiring disclosure of the location of a dog who bit plaintiff.

Tagged with: Medical Treatment

Durham v. Jones The 4th Circuit upholds a $1.1 million jury award to a deputy sheriff who was fired in retaliation for reporting to state and local officials and the news media that superior officers threatened and then terminated the deputy for his refusal to change his internal reports about his use of pepper spray and physical force to subdue a fleeing motorcyclist, which his superiors feared might lead to a lawsuit against the sheriff’s office.

Estate of Sipes v. Cooper In the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence shows that (1) the police went to plaintiff’s trailer in response to a non-violent noise complaint but found the trailer park quiet, (2) plaintiff and her decedent heard a loud knock on their front door late at night, (3) no one responded to their calls of “Who’s there?”, (4) the decedent held a rifle at “hunter’s rest” with his hand away from the trigger when he opened the door, (5) there was sufficient light for defendant Officer Cooper to see the decedent’s hands, (6) Officer Cooper moved behind the front door as the decedent opened it, and (7) Officer Cooper opened fire on the decedent when the decedent turned in Officer Cooper’s direction.

Cooper v. Sheehan Two deputy sheriffs, who shot plaintiff five or six times as he appeared on his porch with a shotgun pointed down to investigate sounds around his home, are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity from plaintiff’s excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Tagged with: police

Wilkins v. Officer Gaddy The 4th Circuit rejects plaintiff prisoner’s constitutional challenge to a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that caps recovery of attorney’s fees for an inmate’s successful civil rights claims, and upholds a district court’s award of $1.40 of plaintiff’s asserted $92,306 in attorney’s fees for his recovery of $1.00 in nominal damages for winning his suit alleging injuries from a beating by a prison guard.

Brown v. Frazier Plaintiffs have failed to allege what specific training deficiency led to deputies allegedly criminally assaulting plaintiff Timothy Brown when he needed medical treatment, calling plaintiffs criminals and liars, and trying to get an emergency responder to file false criminal charges against Mr. Brown; consequently, plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege a claim for failure to adequately train or supervise subordinate

U.S. v. Sterling The 4th Circuit denies rehearing en banc of its July 19 decision that a news reporter does not have a First Amendment or common law shield to protect him from testifying at the criminal prosecution of a former CIA agent on trial for disclosure of national defense information, allegedly used in the reporter’s book.

McCarthy v. City of Charlotte Where plaintiffs’ decedent died after being Tasered by a police officer, and where plaintiffs contend that the defendant-city has or had in place a deficient program of police training and supervision that has resulted in the use of excessive force by untrained or improperly trained officers, plaintiffs have stated a claim against the city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Tagged with: discovery

Davis v. Matroo Both this court and the N.C. Court of Appeals have held that the Raleigh Police Department is not an entity capable of being sued. Plaintiff’s complaint against the RPD is dismissed. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.