Robinson v. Hawkins, No. 18-1823 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against two officers, Hawkins and Swinton, for civil conspiracy and one of the officers, Hawkins, for excessive force and performing an unreasonable search. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the civil conspiracy and excessive force claims, holding that plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support her claims. In this case, plaintiff failed to allege the existence of an agreement between the officers for the conspiracy claim. Furthermore, it was not clearly established at the time that the amount of force used by Hawkins was excessive considering the injuries sustained by plaintiff were minor.
However, the court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to Hawkins on the unreasonable search claim, because issues of material fact remain as to whether Hawkins' search was reasonable. The court stated that a reasonable jury could conclude that the search was unreasonable in both scope and manner. Finally, the district court did not err in denying Hawkins qualified immunity on plaintiff's unreasonable search claim. The court remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Erickson, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Colloton, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. The defendant police officers were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim they conspired to deprive her of her civil rights as the evidence did not establish the existence of an agreement between the officers; defendant Hawkins was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claim because it was not clearly established that the amount of force Hawkins used was excessive; taking the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff on her unreasonable search claim, a reasonable jury could concluded that the search Hawkins undertook was unreasonable in both scope and manner, and the district court did not err in denying Hawkins's motion for summary judgment on the claim. Chief Judge Smith, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Colloton, concurring in part and dissenting in part. [ September 04, 2019
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.