Roberts v. City of Omaha, et al., No. 12-3426 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against defendants, the city and four officers, alleging, among other things, Fourth Amendment excessive force violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983; and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12132; and Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794; and state tort law. The events at issue occurred when officers arrived at plaintiff's home after his mother called 911, reporting that he was having a psychotic episode and had attacked a member of the family. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity and denial of summary judgment to Officer Martinec on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim in securing plaintiff; reversed the denial of qualified immunity and denial of summary judgment for Officers Ricker, Jones, and Raders on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment excessive force claims as to these individual officers; reversed the denial of qualified immunity for all the officers and the denial of summary judgment as to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims; reversed the denial of the city's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's ADA and Rehabilitation Act failure to train claims; and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil case - Civil rights. No reasonable officer could have known the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act imposed a duty to accommodate plaintiff's disability while the officers were attempting to secure him and take him to custody for his own safety and the safety of the officers and plaintiff's family and, as result, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on his ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims; district court did not err in finding officer Martinec was not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment deadly force claim as there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether plaintiff posed an objectively reasonable threat of violence during the entire encounter; two other officers were entitled to qualified immunity on this claim as it is undisputed that neither of them had physical contact with plaintiff or applied any force during the encounter; a third officer was also entitled to qualified immunity as it could not be said that it was objectively unreasonable for him to remove plaintiff from his bed after plaintiff refused to comply with the officers' orders; city was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's ADA and Rehabilitation Act failure to train claims. [ July 30, 2013
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.