# Oral argument — Michael Jones v. City of St. Louis > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/argument%3A89066 ## Record - **Collection:** Oral argument - **Document type:** Oral argument - **Published:** November 16, 2023 ## Text One of the appellees. That's correct. Yeah, and we didn't think it affected whether this argument should go forward But if there's if it is likely to have in any way an impact On the disposition or otherwise that we should be aware of you don't have to tell us today But you might think about it and you can give us a one or both can give us a 28 J letter or what it just explaining what you think, okay, if there is a Collateral so to speak effect on what may or may not happen and Just to address that briefly your honor. I I don't believe that there is I think that in in this case I also filed a notice of death for another defendant And the case ended up being dismissed because as you know 1983 Claims are specific to the defendant And so it's our position that if if there's been a death which there has been as to Defendant Guzzi that he should be dismissed from this action as well as Charlene Deacon. That was the other Defendant that we filed a notice of death for But good morning may it please the court. My name is Abby Duncan. I represent the appellants in this litigation The lower courts decision in this case is contrary to well-established pleading Principles as outlined by the Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal as well as well-established Qualified immunity principles in denying the appellant's motion to dismiss the lower court aired in three main ways The first was by denying qualified immunity to our individual defendants with a complaint failed to allege direct participation and individual involvement in the plaintiff's prolonged detention Second it aired in denying the individual's qualified immunity where it was not clearly established That plaintiff's prolonged detention was a violation of the Fourth Amendment And it aired in denying individual defense qualified immunity where it was not clearly established that the defendant's conduct as it relates to investigating plaintiff's case and Informing the plaintiff of his holdover Was a violation of his substantive due process rights The first point we have is that the the appellant fails to allege each defendant's individual involvement As you know as we heard from a prior argument Liability for damages for a federal constitutional tort is personal. Each defendant's conduct must be individually and independently assessed To establish personal liability of supervisory defendants, which is what we have in this case The complaint must allege specific facts of personal involvement or direct responsibility For a deprivation of a plaintiff's constitutional rights. Otherwise, those defendants are entitled to qualified immunity Here the plaintiff makes claims against supervisory defendants. The two defendants now at issue is former Commissioner Dale Glass Commissioner over all corrections and then the superintendent of the specific jail where plaintiff was housed, the medium security institution Plaintiff alleges in lump sum that defendants generally, although not specifying which one, knew or should have known the plaintiff was Dismissed. Counsel, there's only two defendants. Don't we infer from the pleadings that both of them knew? The allegations pertain to each of them. Well, even even if you Don't parse it out as to which one it pertains to and as you mentioned pertain them to both of them Still the language of that they knew or should have known is conclusory and we see that in Iqbal is Really the main case on this point. In Iqbal the plaintiff Alleged that high-ranking officials in the government knew had a policy and were responsible for promulgating this policy to institute harsher conditions of confinement of certain incarcerated individuals based on religion, race, and or National origin. But unlike in Scott versus Baldwin here, the Jones has alleged that the public defender Informed them that people were being incarcerated past their release date So there is there is that allegation? But it doesn't allege at what point that occurs it's it's also It doesn't allege at what point that occurs and so we don't know whether after this case was filed and after Plaintiff was released a public defender went to them and told them this and that that's a really crucial point How they gained this knowledge Through what means is is critical to making it to pushing it over the edge from being conceivable liability to plausible liability under Twombly and Iqbal So in Iqbal the court found that despite there being allegations of knowing and purposeful actions Because there were no specific facts to show or even intimate What the officials did to promulgate that policy The court found that those allegations were conclusory and not worthy of being taken as true. They were merely naked Assertions devoid of further factual enhancement and that's what we have in this case Doesn't it seem as though like there's got to be the absence of a policy That's the problem here right and so the policy is the absence of a policy because every single person involved in this is Employed by the city of st. Louis whether it's the public defender whether it's the people that manage the jail Whether it's the clerk of court and nobody's ever established a policy as to who is supposed to give notice to the jailer That the charges have been dismissed and this isn't some guy who sat there for three days This is a person who sat there for months And so whether it's adequately pled or not and I get where that might be a problem on these particular Pleadings right and and so it may not be be sufficient to satisfy Iqbal entwinedly, but in the end that you know Shouldn't we as a court and this is not the first case where st Louis has had somebody sit there for weeks without being released when the charges were dismissed We as a court say yeah from here on going forward the absence of a policy directing somebody to inform the jailer that the charges have been dismissed is a Constitutional violation because pretty clearly you can't just hold somebody you know for months without charges And no access to a magistrate to even bring a habeas claim Judge Erickson, I think that those are two What we're alleging in this case is very different from from I guess your question Whether or not there should be a policy. I think is a separate question from whether they have sufficiently pled Whether there's we concluded from saying that there ought to be a policy requiring somebody to To the placing the burden that that they're not that there ought to be that the Constitution Requires the existence of a policy Informed Placing on somebody the duty to inform the jailer that the charges have been dismissed I think at this stage it would be premature to issue an affirmative duty Why do you think that I mean listen? This is not the first time it happens how many people are going to be sitting in the st. Louis City and County Jails for six eight ten months Before somebody wakes up and says there ought to be a rule I mean, that's what I want to know because I'll tell you what I'm just horribly offended This happens once it is offensive, but this happens multiple times and nobody cares enough That is a problem, and it may not be a decisional point in this case But you ought to go back to whoever employs you and tell them you know what there needs to be a policy I Of those things that you've said have have likely already been done in this case But nevertheless it doesn't change the fact that the appellee the plaintiff in this case has an obligation and a duty to Allege facts sufficient enough to implicate the individual defendants in this matter, and they have not done so beyond conclusory and naked assertions devoid of factual enhancement The plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims were not, this is our second point, the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims were not clearly established until Manelle which was decided in 2017 long after the events at issue The first inquiry into any 1983 suit as you know is to isolate the precise constitutional violation with which the defendant is charged Here the plaintiff brings a Fourth Amendment claim against defendants for unlawful seizure In Manuelle the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split. In that case the Seventh Circuit had ruled that the claims governing an unlawful pretrial detention or Fourth Amendment claims governed a claim for unlawful pretrial detention I appreciate that you brought up Manuelle. Why wouldn't we follow the United States Supreme Court guidance on this point? Well, you do, you follow the Supreme Court guidance But following the Supreme Court guidance means that the Fourth Amendment violation was not established at the time of these incidents So these incidents occurred in 2013 and 2014. Are you just talking about labels for the same violation? No, we're not. We're talking about two distinct amendments that require their own analysis and in Malina Even if that was true, isn't it obvious that you can't keep someone imprisoned past their release date? Wouldn't this be a perfect case to apply that rule? That this is an obvious case? Well, it's consistently throughout qualified immunity. What reasonable officer would not know that you can't imprison someone for eight months past their release date? When we look to qualified immunity, and your point is well taken, that this idea in the Eighth Circuit and beyond has percolated, that it is unlawful and it's unlawful specifically under the 14th Amendment But the 1983 qualified immunity analysis requires us to pinpoint a specific constitutional violation at issue and we see that in Malina In Malina, there was a, sorry, did you have a question? Okay, in Malina certain Conduct specifically recording an observation of police conduct was firmly established under the Fourth Amendment But not under the First Amendment under which the plaintiff brought their case even though it's the same action And in that case this court ruled that the First Amendment was not clearly established, that his rights under the First Amendment were not clearly established and therefore they granted qualified immunity And here similarly because the plaintiff's rights were not clearly established under the Fourth Amendment because of Manuel's deciding in 2017 They have, they failed to make out that Fourth Amendment claim. But if both if both claims Don't you, you have to win both, don't you? I mean you just, just knocking out the Fourth Amendment doesn't, doesn't mean we reverse Well, if it was clearly established that what they did violated the Fourteenth Amendment So what, why, why are we messing around with this Fourth Amendment distinction? Right, because they bring the argument under the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendment We know that the Fourteenth Amendment is no longer applicable to a case like this under Manuel But when we get to the Fourth Amendment analysis, which we must now use under Manuel, it is no longer clearly established than in this case Because this case happened in 2013 and 14 and Manuel was decided in 17 Did Manuel subtract the Fourteenth Amendment or just include on its facts the Fourth? It concluded that instead of claims for pretrial Detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment that it should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment But I think we also need to look at what the court actually said in that case. The Supreme Court said we just, this is a quote Decided four decades ago that a claim challenging pretrial detention fell within the scope of the Fourth Amendment, end quote so Why wasn't it clearly established as the Supreme Court said four decades ago? Right The Supreme Court does state that in the opinion But I would argue that because of the existence of a circuit split, it was not clearly established We have circuits in the Eighth We have cases in the Eighth Circuit that analyze it strictly under the Fourteenth Amendment and rejected the Fourth Amendment analysis But that wasn't that that phrase that she said I think it was just Justice Kagan that wrote the opinion Was not written until 2017 and so I would argue that there was a it was saying what anybody could have figured out from four decades of decisions I Mean that The pre-incarceration or pre-custody distinction. Yes, it's often important, but I don't see its importance here in terms of clearly established or the merits And again, I would just emphasize what I've already said, which is that in in the 18 in 1983 cases the first step is to pinpoint the constitutional violation at issue On our third point we argue that there's no clearly established law The defendants had a duty to investigate plaintiff's prolonged detention or inform the plaintiff of his prolonged detention And for that we look to support for Davis v Hall where the court this court said that whatever haziness obscures the exact contours of a duty to investigate burns off once the authorities know that they have no basis for detention therefore stating that a supervisory employee has to have actual knowledge and it acknowledges kind of the haziness of This area of corrections officers or supervisory employees to investigate claims and then also as to a duty to inform This seems to be a novel argument that they have advanced in the complaint. I don't find any support for the idea that defendants had a duty after a plaintiff was released to inform him that he was held over Longer than he was and they've they've pointed to no support for that It's for all these reasons that we ask that the district court be reversed and I'll reserve the rest of my time. Thank you You Mr. Gross may please the court Your honors I Do want to answer some of the questions that came up already so judge Judge Gross You're talking about both of the defendants Here, there are only two that are remaining the allegations in the complaint at this point. We are As judge Erickson noted earlier, we're in a different world and we're not here on summary judgment This is here on a motion to dismiss that We've received an order from the trial court that was similar to Similar evidence in there Well similar allegations in their cases as well and allowed those to proceed as well The main case that was used there was Davis versus Hall So Davis versus Hall has been used as a a guide post for these different cases because it is so close on point the issue with Manual here in terms of the circuit split and everything else first I don't I don't think that that argument holds water for the very reasons that have been brought up by this court already The conduct was clearly illegal detaining somebody for eight months without any charges against them whatsoever And maintaining that detention over that time period is not allowed under the Fourth Amendment Or really under the 14th Amendment or any other part of the Constitution of the United States of America in manual however, that case specifically dealt with the situation in Illinois where if Somebody had to allege they had some conversion process, which obviously didn't make sense and Justice Kagan Agreed, but there was some conversion process at the Seventh Circuit held that once you were through the detention process You were arrested and now we're beginning the legal process and everything else Your Fourth Amendment claim has been converted into a 14th Amendment Substantive due process claim and the reason that was so important was because in Illinois There was another procedure that you had to go through that you were entitled to certain other remedies And that you would have to go through that process. That's why this whole issue was so important for that case, but Importantly for this case manual dealt with pre-trial detention Here Michael Jones was held for a total of 11 months three of those months were pursuant to charges They were pre trial Those charges were dismissed for the heathen sue for any of the any claims under the the three months This malicious prosecution version of the federal claim. He was suing specifically for the eight-month period when he was held without charges Iqbal was decided 2000 I'm sorry. I don't have that right off the top of my head your honor. Yeah 2009 2009 right Way after Lewis v. Hall, yes So Lewis v. Hall gives us no no help on how you What's adequate pleading under Iqbal? So I'm assuming you're Davis v. Hall, correct? Yes Davis v. Hall which is from 2004 so not not I mean, I guess yes, it's certainly before there are however other cases that show the sufficiency of the pleadings here specifically number one And in several cases do still look at the Fourth Amendment even after I don't care about the fourth or the 14th I care about the failure to put anyone on notice of what this claim is about because it's so generally alleged Well, your honor. I don't think it is that facts that are were within you and your clients Ready access that are not alleged Well, I don't believe that acts that are that can't be alleged without discovery because they're solely within the defendants possession Well, well, your honor, I would disagree to Significant part of that and this kind of goes to the early argument that you all heard today the judge Erickson's hypothetical if this person had Been so for example with what had lost consciousness during this meeting I can get quick Quickly to what's on my mind? Yeah, I mean your client was represented in this case by the public defender Yeah, yes, your honor. Now. I would think it would take no more than a half-hour interview with the public defender To determine when did you learn of this? Well, who did you tell? What do you know about what happened? That should have been found out and alleged in my view to sort out the problems with with going forward Your honor and like I mentioned there was some other in the absence of that frankly is my reason I'm very inclined to revert to reverse. I mean your honor. So so there has been in previous litigation That's related to this there has been depositions of the public defender's office and some of those that did go to discovery The record I don't care about depositions and discovery I'm talking about the plaintiff's lawyer who's looking to file this complaint in a manner that satisfies Iqbal's plausible pleading requirements and qualified immunity particularization requirements Would have should have and must have frankly sat down with the public defender and said well Here's what my client has learned after the fact tell tell us tell me what happened contemporaneously Mm-hmm. Yeah, and your honor. I'm assuming you learned that and you didn't plead it for a reason well Your honor, I just believe it was pledged sufficiently Counsel maybe you could go through the complaint a little bit Yeah, that's the district court felt that glass and Carson adequately pled their Claims, but maybe you could kind of go through and convince us that they pled enough facts To plausibly show the direct involvement in the formation implementation and enforcement of the policy and as you do that Maybe I just can't read the complaint, but in the complaint I never saw where any of the defendants were identified as to what their position was what there's what their Authority was what they specifically failed to do and how that led to the defendants Or to the plaintiff's loss yes, yes, your honor and to answer that question So the defendants positions were alleged early on that would be paragraphs three through six in the petition So that would be early on in the game. Yeah, but all you've given me is titles correct Yes, and you haven't told me what their duties were you know I'm the superintendent well that tells me you know that they're a management Person, but it doesn't tell me what specific obligations that they had to the day-to-day Management of the jail what were they supposed to know when were they supposed to know it? What were they supposed to do? What was within their scope of authority, and I think post-it ball We're supposed to plead those things We're supposed to say okay Smith is there is the chief jailer the chief jailer is responsible for the prison for the jail roll call As the manager of the jail roll call he has a duty to inspect the orders of the court as they come down He failed to do so by a Plaintiff mr.. Jones was never informed of The fact that his charges have been dismissed he sat for eight months You know that I would understand, but this is just sort of he has this job And then no one informed him And we don't know who was supposed to and when they were and when what their individual duties were well your honor I would point you back to the the complaint and that would be so the Responsibilities and perhaps they weren't just ordered in the right way and and that could be a drafting Error too if it wasn't as clear, but paragraphs 36 37 44 45 46 all of those discuss the Responsibilities of the different defendants, and then the authority that they have everybody's got this duty It doesn't say where it came from and who's got it I mean why I mean I just don't you know what you've got is a whole list of jail people And you say they have his duty, and I'm looking at it saying How do you review that for plausibility, and I'm wasting your time. I don't mean I I don't think so your honor It's your time after all but Davis V Hall did I mean there's a clear and this has been something that that has been True since the 1960s when they cited this quote in the notice pleading here Well, but the the the instance in Davis V Hall is is the requirement of folks in these types of positions to ensure that they actually have somebody in jail who's supposed to be there That you can get in a horn book Well I Might might the reason for saying that your honor is I do believe that the the facts alleged here certainly And I mean a lot of courts looked at this, and it's no you can read all the orders They said that the facts were light in these situations But given the inferences that have to be made in favor of the plaintiff at this stage of the pleadings We're not on summary judgment right now. We don't have to make any inferences and we don't have to use inferences to create Plausible plausibility there wasn't a ledge, but I Yes, your honor. I agree with that statement however in this situation Given the positions that were alleged of these folks the requirements and other cases over long-standing case law statement This is their responsibility to ensure that folks are not being detained illegally within their custody And then looking at the responsibilities that were alleged I agree you could have written a whole lot more here But I do think this is a basic requirement putting Public employees At litigation at litigation risk at public expense When they aren't given a fair notice of what the problem is and why why am I why am I the defendant well your honor? I as I said and I suppose we disagree on this point, but within the petition itself There is sufficient notice to let the folks who are running the jail and the corrections division because those are the last folks who are left Know that they are just there has to be policies in place which we're pleading Lee requires the defense counsel To search out information that was more accessible to the plaintiff's lawyer and drafting before drafting in the complaint plus other things of course Well your honor. I so I think at this point. This is something. I'm sorry I forgot to mention earlier, but I had meant to discuss it So this is this is a situation where the plaintiff did not have as much access as defendant to this I told you the access the plaintiff had but the plaintiff didn't even know this had happened to him for years until after plaintiff's lawyer before the complaint is filed Sure sure your client has said I didn't know about this for eight months well if the public defender was was even even had been relieved of Responsibility public defender had probably an obligation if not to a former client and as an officer of the court to tell to tell find out Okay, he's I Understand he's got we went back to the prison. You know why what happened? Well in a lot the public defender if the public defender had done that This wouldn't happen Potentially your honor I mean in other than potentially well in It's it's hard because we haven't gotten to the discovery phase of this case yet But but in a lot of the public defense the public defenders if you if you I'm personal I think that's fine if the person who drafted the Complaint had found out what could be found out from an interview of the public defender and allege that I Followed from what you learned in the public defender you would have you you would have first of all Iqbal compliance and second Compliance with the purpose of Iqbal. Well your honor in potentially more facts could be I just There's a large imbalance between who has knowledge in this case so for the public defender for example There was a reason that this individual was left there for eight months without being released without the public defender having intervened Either and in a lot of that is because the authority of the public defender's office Evaporates once the criminal case is dismissed and so there's not we're not on you say that Right, and I mean if so, that's I'll guarantee that Nine a 90% or more of the public defenders would say yeah, well well technically my job was over But my obligation to my former client and and to the proper Administration of justice is that I do something about this so counsel the district court agreed with you that glass and Carson Plausibly pled their claims is there anything in the district courts order explained why they came to that conclusion that you could Share with us that might be helpful to them. Yeah, I do believe that the the order cited the same provisions of the The the petition that I just did But I can see I mean in the order itself They did look it was pre Iqbal. This is true. They did look at the the Davis v. Harris case They did look at the facts having been pled and they found that because of the stage that were I think a lot of it did a lot of it is dependent on the stage of the Procedure that we're in right now because this is a motion to dismiss versus a summary judgment so because of that The court looked it's not just that court I mean several other courts have looked at very similar complaints in these situations And you know after some of these have gone to discovery and this one has what was the number? What was a 12 be what motion? The motion to dismiss. Yeah 12 b6 Yes, your honor if we look at the complaint There's a number of references to new or should have no one and that's ordinarily a negligence Standard right? It's not the same. I think technically is pleading on information and belief You know now it may and maybe it's good enough But but I'd like you just to address that because obviously mere negligence doesn't get you there. Yeah, and your honor I don't think it's it's so the complaint itself doesn't hinge just on the new or should have known that builds up with the rest of The allegations within the complaint as well What that does show is that the defendants should have known or did know and in some situations depending on what discovery shows That folks were being illegally detained there and specifically Michael Jones is being illegally detained in the jail And then so that's that's really those aren't the only things that the claims are hinging on those those statements themselves I see that my time has run out so for all those reasons we do ask that this court uphold the trial courts Order and send this case back for discovery. Thank you. Your honor. Thank you Thank you judges, I'm just very briefly unless any of you have any questions I did just want to point out that this case is is unique in that Opposing counsel did reference other cases that they have Filed that are similar to this and in those cases. There's there's been discovery done And so there really is no excuse in this case Where it's in other cases They may not have had or been entitled or had access to the information that the defendant had in this case They had they've had many much access To what the defendants do what their job duties are Etc. And so I would just ask that the court take that into consideration when ruling on this case We ask that the district courts order be reversed. Thank you Thank You counsel case has been well briefed and argued and we'll take it under advisement --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/argument%3A89066. Public record. Not legal advice.