Hamilton v. Kindred

Plaintiffs filed suit against officers and their employers, alleging 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims after plaintiffs were subject to an invasive cavity search. On appeal, Defendant Kindred challenges the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that excessive force had not been waived. In this case, while plaintiffs never used the word "excessive force" in their complaint and were less than clear during the proceedings about exactly what theories they were advancing, they have clearly argued that they were subject to an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and have alleged facts that support a claim for excessive force. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's determination regarding bystander liability. Accordingly, the court dismissed Kindred's appeal. View "Hamilton v. Kindred" on Justia Law