Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-12-2024
Case Style:
Jayne Swinford v. Officer Joshua Santos, et al.
Case Number: 3:21-CV-90
Judge: C. Ashley Royal
Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (Bibb County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Macon Civil Rights Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney: Not Available
Description:
Macon, Georgia civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants for excessive force wrongful death theory.
Thomas was shot and killed by Athens-Clarke County (“ACC”)
police officers after he refused officers’ commands to drop a gun1
and instead raised and pointed it at police officers. Thomas’s
widow, Jayne Swinford, filed a lawsuit in Georgia state court
alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Georgia’s wrongful
death statute against seven individual officers who shot Thomas
after he raised his gun, the ACC police department’s chief of police
in his official and individual capacities, and the county government.
Mrs. Swinford’s complaint referenced, but did not attach, body
camera footage, which she asserted supported her claims. The case
was timely removed to federal court.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on qualified and
official immunity grounds, relying primarily on body camera
footage from two officers that showed the sequence of events
leading up to the shooting. The district court considered the body
camera footage over Mrs. Swinford’s objections and granted
defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the footage established
that the officers acted reasonably in light of the circumstances they
faced and thus they did not violate Thomas’s constitutional rights.
Accordingly, the district court also denied Mrs. Swinford’s motion
to amend her complaint on futility grounds. The district court
subsequently denied her motion to reconsider, and she timely
appealed.
* * *
Qualified immunity shields government employees from
suit against them in their individual capacities for discretionary
actions they perform in carrying out their duties. Brooks v. Miller,
78 F.4th 1267, 1279 (11th Cir. 2023). To determine whether
qualified immunity applies, we engage in a burden-shifting
analysis. Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir. 2002). The
first step requires a defendant to show that he was acting within
the scope of his discretionary authority when committing the
challenged act. Id. “Once the defendant does that, the burden
shifts to the plaintiff, who must show that qualified immunity is
not appropriate” by establishing: “(1) the defendant violated a
constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was ‘clearly
established’ at the time of the defendant’s actions.” Brooks, 78 F.4th
at 1280 (citing Powell v. Snook, 25 F.4th 912, 920 (11th Cir. 2022)).
“Courts have ‘discretion to decide which of the two prongs of the
qualified-immunity analysis to tackle first.’” Id. (alterations
adopted) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011)).
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
Find a Lawyer
Find a Case
