Jamie Cunningham v. Cobb County, Georgia, et al.

Savannah, Georgia personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who claimed that he civil rights were violation through the use of excessive force.



* * *



In July 2020, Jamie Cunningham burglarized a car dealership in Cobb County, Georgia, and fled the scene. Cobb County police officers chased after him and used physical force to handcuff and arrest him. Following his arrest, Cunningham filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against certain police officers and Cobb County. Cunningham alleged that the Defendant Officers used excessive force in violation of both the Fourth Amendment and Georgia law. Cunningham also claimed that Cobb County was liable for the officers' alleged constitutional violation under the Monell1 doctrine.

After discovery, the Defendant Officers moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity on Cunningham's Fourth Amendment claim and official immunity on Cunningham's state-law claim. Cobb County also moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not liable for the Defendant Officers' conduct because the Officers had not violated Cunningham's constitutional rights, and even if they had, Cobb County did not have a defective custom or policy that caused Cunningham's alleged injuries.



* * *



"The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit

USCA11 Case: 24-1087924-10879 Opinion of the Court 11 in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Marbury v. Warden, 936 F.3d 1227, 1232 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (quoting Gonzalez v. Reno, 325 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted)). "In order to assert a qualified immunity defense, a government official must show that he was acting within his discretionary authority during the alleged wrongdoing.” Helm v. Rainbow City, Ala., 989

F.3d 1265, 1272 (11th Cir. 2021) (internal quotations omitted). Then "the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show (1) that the government official violated a constitutional right and, if so, (2) that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the wrongdoing.” Id. Our inquiry "can begin with either prong.” Marbury, 936 F.3d at 1233 (affirming district court's order granting summary judgment to defendants without considering whether there was "clearly established [law] at the time of the alleged violation” because inmate failed to show that officials violated a constitutional

right).



* * *



Federal judge hate excessive force cases and bend themselves into legal pretzels to find in favor of cops who hurt or kill people.

The Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.



Affirmed