Civil Rights: 1983-Failure to Provide Medical Aid-Qualified Immunity

Defendants appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff’s son died in a vehicle accident that occurred while he fled from defendants. Plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to provide medical aid in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. The district court denied defendants’ request for qualified immunity, arguing that there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded granting summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Where there was testimonial evidence indicating that defendants performed a PIT maneuver that caused the accident, which was not contradicted by the pursuit video footage, and where a reasonable officer would know that a person had a clearly established right to medical aid after a motor vehicle accident, the district court correctly concluded that there were factual disputes precluding the entry of summary judgment.

Stras, J., dissenting: “As the court recognizes, the Constitution only creates a duty to aid once officers “take[] a person into . . . custody and hold[] him there against his will.” DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 199–200 (emphasis added). But I could not locate a single case, much less a “robust consensus” of them, that extends it to someone they have seized by force but have not taken into custody… We can debate whether we should extend it to cover this situation, but no officer would be “on notice” that the Constitution does. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). Qualified immunity applies in just these circumstances.”

Judgment is affirmed.

Cheeks v. Belmar (MLW No. 80473/Case No. 22-2749 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Pitlyk, J. (Robert T. Plunkert, of St. Louis, MO for appellant) (Christopher Bent, of St. Louis, MO for appellee)