Brooks v. Clark County, No. 14-16424 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs Brooks and Smith, bail enforcement agents, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, against various defendants after they were removed from a court room by a courtroom marshal at the request of a judge. The court concluded that neither precedent nor first principles justify giving courtroom officials absolute immunity when they allegedly use force in excess of what their judge commanded and the Constitution allows. In this case, the marshal was not performing a judicial function and he employed more force than the judge ordered him to use. The court concluded, however, that the marshal was entitled to a qualified immunity defense. Given the chaos in the courtroom and the undisputed evidence that Brooks was intent on disobeying the court’s instructions - and given his extremely vague and insubstantial allegations about his injury - it is simply not “beyond debate” that the marshal employed an unreasonable amount of force. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the marshal's absolute immunity defense and reversed the district court's denial of his qualified immunity defense.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s order denying a motion to dismiss a bail enforcement agent’s claim that a courtroom marshal used excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, when executing a judge’s order to remove a disruptive individual from her courtroom. The panel affirmed the denial of the marshal’s absolute immunity defense to the bail enforcement agent’s claim for damages. The panel concluded that the marshal was not performing a judicial function when he removed the bail enforcement agent from the courtroom, allegedly using force in excess of what the judge commanded, and was not entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of the marshal’s qualified immunity defense. The panel concluded that on the basis of the allegations in the complaint, it was not beyond debate, at the time the marshal acted, that the amount of force he employed violated the Constitution. BROOKS V. CLARK COUNTY 3
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.