1
ANGELA L. LAWHON, as Administrator of the Estate of Joshua L. Lawhon, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEXANDER MAYES, Defendant-Appellant,
and JOHN EDWARDS; LASHAUN TURNER; CHRISTOPHER TENLEY, Defendants. ANGELA L. LAWHON, as Administrator of the Estate of Joshua L. Lawhon, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER TENLEY, Defendant-Appellant,
and JOHN EDWARDS; LASHAUN TURNER; ALEXANDER MAYES, Defendants. ANGELA L. LAWHON, as Administrator of the Estate of Joshua L. Lawhon, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN EDWARDS; LASHAUN TURNER, Defendants - Appellants,
and ALEXANDER MAYES; CHRISTOPHER TENLEY, Defendants, WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Amicus Supporting Appellee.
Nos. 20-1906, 20-1907, 20-1908
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
November 15, 2021
UNPUBLISHED
Argued: October 28, 2021
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00924-HEH)
2
ARGUED:
Mark Charles Nanavati, SINNOTT, NUCKOLS &LOGAN, P.C., Midlothian, Virginia; Leslie A. Winneberger, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN &WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia; John Anthony Conrad, CONRAD FIRM, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants.
Isaac Abraham McBeth, HALPERIN LAW CENTER, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF:
David P. Corrigan, John P. Dunnigan, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN &WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant Christopher Tenley. G. Christopher Jones, Jr., SINNOTT, NUCKOLS &LOGAN, P.C., Midlothian, Virginia, for Appellants.
Jonathan E. Halperin, HALPERIN LAW CENTER, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellee.
Kwaku A. Akowuah, Mark P. Guerrera, Justin A. Benson, Joshua Moore, Alaric R. Smith, Washington, D.C., Lindsay N. Walter, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Amicus Curiae.
Before MOTZ, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and Judge Harris joined.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3
DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, CIRCUIT JUDGE
This appeal arises from a tragic incident that led to the death of Joshua Lawhon, an unarmed mentally ill man. Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Virginia state law, Lawhon's mother, as administrator of his estate, brought this action against the police officers and paramedics whose assertedly improper actions cost her son his life. Defendants moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of qualified immunity and state law immunity. The district court refused to do so regarding Defendants' conduct after they secured Lawhon in handcuffs and the Defendants now appeal. We affirm on the basis of its well-reasoned opinion.
I.
Ms. Lawhon alleges the following in her complaint.
On January 16, 2018, two officers from the Richmond City Police Department responded to a call from Joshua Lawhon's roommate, Shaunna Tunstall. Tunstall expressed concern for Lawhon's well-being because he had fallen and injured himself. Lawhon had a history of paranoid schizophrenia and informed the officers he had taken too much of a certain medication that day. The police officers urged him to go to the hospital voluntarily for evaluation, but he refused. When two paramedics arrived, they asked Lawhon a series of questions to evaluate his state of mind. He answered the questions correctly but became increasingly agitated. When the paramedics prepared to leave, Tunstall urged them to take Lawhon and expressed a concern that he could kill himself if he remained at home. However, she did not convey any fear that he could pose a danger to others.
4
According to the complaint, the police officers and paramedics then "carried out a ruse" by pretending to allow Lawhon to go find the cigarette he had requested. As Lawhon walked toward the other room to do so, Officer Edwards grabbed him from behind, forced him into the prone position - on his stomach with his hands behind his back - and with the assistance of the other police officer and the two paramedics, handcuffed him.
The Defendants then applied varying degrees of force to his body while Lawhon remained handcuffed in the prone position for nearly six minutes, with his face pushed into a pillow on the floor for most of that time. During the last three minutes, Lawhon was motionless and silent. When the Defendants finally rolled Lawhon off his stomach and onto his back, he remained unresponsive. It was later determined that he suffered "irreversible hypoxic brain injury due to cardiac arrest and/or asphyxia." Two days later, he was declared brain dead.
II.
"We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, accepting as true the facts alleged in the complaint and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292, 306 (4th Cir. 2006). For this reason, "when [a qualified immunity defense is] asserted at this early stage in the proceedings, the defense faces a formidable hurdle and is usually not successful." Owens v. Balt. City State's Att'ys Off., 767 F.3d 379, 396 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition to the facts as stated in the complaint, the district court correctly considered the body camera footage in deciding whether to grant the motions to dismiss.
5
In determining whether officers enjoy qualified immunity, we must determine 1) whether the plaintiff has plausibly alleged a violation of a constitutional right and 2) whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established, i.e., whether every reasonable officer would have known that the conduct violated a clearly established right. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 227 (2009). Here, as the...
