stating that principal who physically assaulted students violated their clearly established constitutional rights, but noting that “for purposes of resolving this qualified immunity appeal, we need not and do not resolve the question of whether the Fourth Amendment, rather than the Due Process Clause, protects a student from the use of excessive force by a school official.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that principal who physically assaulted students violated their clearly established constitutional rights, but noting that “for purposes of resolving this qualified immunity appeal, we need not and do not resolve the question of whether the Fourth Amendment, rather than the Due Process Clause, protects a student from the use of excessive force by a school official.”
- holding that, “[r]egardless of the appropriate ‘home’ for plaintiffs’ right to be free from excessive force, there was a clearly established right to be free such force” because “[u]nder any standard, [the defendant’s] alleged actions were clearly unlawful.”
- holding that when there is no disciplinary need to use force against a student, “one can reasonably infer” that the violent actions were taken “not in good faith but for the purpose of causing harm”
- holding that, when there was a claim of excessive force on the part of a school principal, the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment was appealable immediately
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RYMER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the judgment because there is little doubt that, by 1990,. the contours of a student’s right to be free from the violations of bodily integrity alleged in this ease were clearly established. The district court therefore correctly denied Koch’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Beyond that we cannot go, since the district court found (in resolving an earlier round of summary judgment motions) that there are genuine issues of material fact as to the need for corporal punishment, amount of force, extent of injury, and the reason for the force being applied to each of the students. Johnson v. Jones, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2151 , 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995).