James Carroll v. Eric Mays

Eighth Circuit

James Carroll v. Eric Mays

9 F. App'x 577

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 16, 2001

Docket00-2354

StatusUnpublished

This text of 9 F. App'x 577 (James Carroll v. Eric Mays) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Carroll v. Eric Mays, 9 F. App'x 577 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

After a non-jury trial of plaintiff James Carroll’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the District Court¹ granted judgment to defendant Eric Mays on the ground of qualified immunity. Carroll appeals, arguing that the District Court erred as a matter of law in holding that in the circumstances of the case Mays was immune from suit.

Having reviewed the case and considered all of Carroll’s arguments for reversal, we conclude the District Court did not err in granting Mays qualified immunity and dismissing Carroll’s § 1983 claim. We are satisfied that Mays had an ample factual basis to believe that Carroll had threatened his former wife in violation of a protective order, and that the detention of Carroll for nearly two hours while officers investigated the status of the protective order in question was reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of the detention. We agree with the District Court there were valid security reasons for not taking Carroll to his home to check out his story (which turned out to be true) that the protective order against him had been rescinded. Though the District Court did not discuss the case in terms of probable cause, we think the record would support the conclusion that Mays had not only reasonable suspicion but also probable cause for Carroll’s detention.

In short, the record fully supports the District Court’s conclusion that Mays’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established federal law and that he therefore was entitled to qualified immunity. Moreover, based on the District Court’s findings of fact, none of which appears to be in dispute, we believe the court could just as well have gone straight to the merits and decided the case on the ground that Mays’s conduct did not violate the Constitution. In any event, for the reasons fully explained in the District Court’s memorandum opinion, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

After a non-jury trial of plaintiff James Carroll’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the District Court¹ granted judgment to defendant Eric Mays on the ground of qualified immunity. Carroll appeals, arguing that the District Court erred as a matter of law in holding that in the circumstances of the case Mays was immune from suit.

Having reviewed the case and considered all of Carroll’s arguments for reversal, we conclude the District Court did not err in granting Mays qualified immunity and dismissing Carroll’s § 1983 claim. We are satisfied that Mays had an ample factual basis to believe that Carroll had threatened his former wife in violation of a protective order, and that the detention of Carroll for nearly two hours while officers investigated the status of the protective order in question was reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of the detention. We agree with the District Court there were valid security reasons for not taking Carroll to his home to check out his story (which turned out to be true) that the protective order against him had been rescinded. Though the District Court did not discuss the case in terms of probable cause, we think the record would support the conclusion that Mays had not only reasonable suspicion but also probable cause for Carroll’s detention.

In short, the record fully supports the District Court’s conclusion that Mays’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established federal law and that he therefore was entitled to qualified immunity. Moreover, based on the District Court’s findings of fact, none of which appears to be in dispute, we believe the court could just as well have gone straight to the merits and decided the case on the ground that Mays’s conduct did not violate the Constitution. In any event, for the reasons fully explained in the District Court’s memorandum opinion, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 F. App'x 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-carroll-v-eric-mays-ca8-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack