The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JEREL MATTHEWS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 3:17-cv-366-GCS
)
KIM BUTLER, )
JOHN TROST, )
GAIL WALLS, )
KENT BROOKMAN, and )
TREY FRITSCHE )
)
Defendant. )
ADDENDUM TO MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
On March 6, 2020, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part
the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Kim Butler, Gail Walls, Kent
Brookman, and Trey Fritsche. (Doc. 111). The order inadvertently failed to address
Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims,
and the Court does so now by way of this addendum.
Qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages
insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S.
223, 231 (2009). The doctrine “balances two important interests – the need to hold public
officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield
officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties
reasonably.” Id. It protects an official from suit “when she makes a decision that, even if
constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the
circumstances she confronted.” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004).
The qualified immunity test has two prongs: (1) whether the facts shown, taken in
the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, demonstrate that the officer’s
conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly
established at the time of the alleged misconduct. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. See also
Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 197; Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609 (1999). To be “’clearly
established’ a right must be defined so clearly that every reasonable official would have
understood that what he was doing violated that right.” Dibble v. Quinn, 793 F.3d 803, 808
(7th Cir. 2015)(citing Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012)). There need not be a case
directly on point, but “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional
question beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011). The right must be
established “not as a broad general proposition.” Reichle, 566 U.S. at 664. Instead, it must
be “particularized” such that the “contours” of it are clear to a reasonable official. Id. That
is, “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond
debate.” Carroll v. Carmen, 135 S.Ct. 348, 350 (2014).
For the reasons stated in the March 6, 2020 Memorandum & Order, the Court finds
that Defendants Fritsche, Butler, and Walls are entitled to qualified immunity because,
even when the facts are taken in the light most favorable to Matthews, they engaged in
no conduct that violated Matthews’ constitutionally-protected rights. When all inferences
are drawn in Plaintiff’s favor, however, Defendant Brookman’s conduct could be said to
demonstrate a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. As such, Defendant Brookman
is not entitled to qualified immunity. Digitally signed
IT IS SO ORDERED. rate
Kitter |e, Sm ‘i ge Gilbert C.
Dated: March 9, 2020. Ison
Date: 2020.03.09
16:21:56 -05'00'
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 3