In this excessive force case against the Suffolk County Police Department, the Court of Appeals held in 2017 that the plaintiff had enough evidence to prove that one of the officers shot and killed the decedent in violation of constitutional standards. On remand, however, rather than empanel a jury, the trial court gave the case additional thought and granted summary judgment to the officer, dismissing the case. Can the trial court do that?
The case is Callahan v. Suffolk County Police Dept., issued on March 19. This case was originally filed in 2012. It arose after officer Wilson went to the Callahan's home, and their 26 year-old son, who had substance abuse problems, was shot by the officer. The parties sharply dispute what happened prior to the shooting, as the officer maintained that Kevin had a gun and he shot Kevin in self-defense. The family denies that account. The case went to trial and the jury returned a verdict in Wilson's favor, but the Court of Appeals ruled in 2017, 863 F.3d 144, that the jury was improperly charged on the standards guiding excessive force claims. The Second Circuit thus remanded the case to the Eastern District of New York for a new trial.
On remand, the judge placed the case on the trial-ready calendar but the defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing that Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity on the wrongful death claim. The district court granted that motion, and the case returned to the Second Circuit (Parker, Lee and Merriam), which teaches the trial court a lesson on appellate mandates.
When the Court of Appeals issues a ruling, it issues a "mandate" that requires the trial court to faithfully comply with its order. The trial court does not have any discretionary authority to second-guess the Second Circuit's ruling or its judgment. When the Second Circuit ordered a new trial in this case, the trial court did not have authority to decide on its own that there were no factual issues for trial. While there are some exceptions to this rule, none apply here, as the factual record was not further developed on remand and the record upon which the district court granted summary judgment was essentially the same as the record that was before the Court of Appeals in remanding this case for trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment