Davitt v. Krage, No. 23-1835 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment, based on qualified immunity, in favor of government attorneys Michael Spindler-Krage and Thomas Canan. The plaintiff, Michael Davitt, had brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Spindler-Krage and Canan, alleging they violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they advised police that Davitt could be removed from his hotel room without eviction proceedings.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Olmsted County, Minnesota, arranged temporary, non-communal housing for elderly and vulnerable homeless individuals. Davitt, who was 69 years old and homeless, was moved into a Super 8 hotel room. When the county stopped paying for his room, Davitt refused to leave, citing a Minnesota governor's executive order temporarily prohibiting evictions. Spindler-Krage and Canan, after reviewing the relevant state law, the executive order, and the Agreement for Hotel Guests, advised the police that Davitt was a hotel guest, not a tenant protected by the executive order.
In granting Spindler-Krage and Canan summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the district court found that no case law, statute, or other legal authority clearly established that Davitt was a tenant with a constitutionally protected right to his hotel room. The court also found that the advice provided to the police was objectively reasonable. The Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that Spindler-Krage and Canan did not violate Davitt’s clearly established rights and were thus entitled to qualified immunity.
Court Description: [Melloy, Author, with Erickson and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in advising the Rochester police department that plaintiff was a hotel guest and could be removed from his room without violating an executive order protecting tenants from eviction; it was not clearly established in June 2020 that someone in plaintiff's position - an individual temporarily provided a motel room under an emergency pandemic housing initiative - was a tenant with the right to remain in his room without paying rent until the motel obtained an eviction order; in the absence of clearly established law, the defendants were objectively reasonable in determining plaintiff was a trespassing guest without the property and due process rights of a tenant. [ March 20, 2024 ]
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.