Heather De Mian v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-3000 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff was filming a protest when Officer Olsten pepper sprayed the crowd. She sued Officer Olsten, Commissioner Hayden, and the City of St. Louis for violating her First Amendment rights, among other things. The district court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. On appeal, Plaintiff challenged the district court’s grant of summary judgment on her First Amendment claim against Officer Olsten and her municipal liability claim against the City. She also argued that her state law causes of action should be “reinstated.”
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that De Mian’s actions motivated Officer Olsten to spray in her direction. So the lack of a causal connection is “so free from doubt as to justify taking this question from the jury.” Plaintiff argued that she is a well-known reporter and is readily identifiable because she is in a wheelchair. But this fact, without more, is insufficient for a jury to infer that Officer Olsten knew or recognized her. She also speculates that Officer Olsten may have been retaliating against her for filming. But “there is no evidence Officer Olsten observed her filming or deployed pepper spray in retaliation for her doing so.”
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Colloton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff was pepper sprayed while filming a protest in St. Louis; the district court did not err in determining the defendant police officer was entitled to qualified immunity as there was no evidence that plaintiff interacted with the officer, that he was aware of her presence or that she did anything to differentiate herself from the other protestors in the crowd; there was no evidence the officer knew or recognized plaintiff or that he sprayed in her direction in retaliation for her actions; the lack of any causal connection was so free from doubt that the district court did not err in taking this question from the jury; in the absence of a constitutional violation, there can be no municipal liability; the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.
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.