Jody Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, No. 19-1469 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
On remand, the Supreme Court directed the Eighth Circuit to “to employ an inquiry that clearly attends to the facts and circumstances” of the incident between Plaintiffs’ son and the officers in considering whether the officers used unconstitutionally excessive force or, if they did, whether the Plaintiffs’ son’s right to be free of such force in these circumstances was clearly established at the time of his death.
The court affirmed the district court’s ruling and concluded that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the right in question was not clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs’ son’s death and the City is not liable for a policy of deliberate indifference in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right.
The court explained that the Supreme Court has never addressed whether prone restraint generally, or a particular use of prone restraint, more specifically, is unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court has never answered the question of whether a right may be clearly established without a Supreme Court case specifically recognizing it. Thus, assuming, as the Supreme Court has, that a court of appeals decision may constitute clearly established law, the precedent in this area is insufficient to demonstrate that the facts, in this case, show a violation of a clearly established right of a detainee to be free from prone restraint while resisting.
Thus, the Plaintiffs’ son’s right to be free from prone restraint while engaged in ongoing resistance, even where officers applied force to various parts of his body, including his back, was not clearly established in 2015 when the incident occurred.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Colloton and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. On remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration. Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, 141 S. Ct. 2239 (2021). For the court's prior opinion, see Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, 956 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2020). The court now determines that the defendant police officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the right in question - to be free from the use of a prone restraint under the circumstances presented - was not clearly established at the time of the plaintiffs' son's death; the City is not liable for a policy of deliberate indifference in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 20, 2020.
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.