WENDY BROWNING, MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF C.S., A MINOR; DARRELL SMITH, AS GUARDIAN OF M.S., A MINOR v. EDMONSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY, ET AL.; SHANE DOYLE; JORDAN JONES - Articles

All Content

WENDY BROWNING, MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF C.S., A MINOR; DARRELL SMITH, AS GUARDIAN OF M.S., A MINOR v. EDMONSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY, ET AL.; SHANE DOYLE; JORDAN JONES

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Nov 17, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Aaron D. Smith, ENGLISH, LUCAS, PRIEST & OWSLEY, LLP, Bowling Green, Kentucky, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Gregory A. Belzley, BELZLEY, BATHURST & BENTLEY, Prospect, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Aaron D. Smith, Jessica R. Shoulders, ENGLISH, LUCAS, PRIEST & OWSLEY, LLP, Bowling Green, Kentucky, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Gregory A. Belzley, BELZLEY, BATHURST & BENTLEY, Prospect, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Judge(s): COLE, ROGERS, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This case arises from a high-speed police pursuit by Edmonson County, Kentucky, sheriffs that ended in a collision between the fleeing car and another vehicle. Two minor passengers in the fleeing vehicle, C.S. and M.S., were injured, and one of them, C.S., although unconscious in the backseat, was subsequently tased by defendant Deputy Sheriff Jordan Jones when C.S. did not respond to instructions from Jones. The two minors brought this suit against Edmonson County and several police officers for the injuries they sustained, asserting a variety of constitutional and state law claims. The district court dismissed most of the claims, but denied summary judgment on an excessive force claim against defendant Jones pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and on several state-law claims asserted against defendants Jones and Sheriff Shane Doyle. In this interlocutory appeal, Jones and Doyle argue that the district court erred in ruling that they were not entitled to qualified immunity on these remaining claims. Defendants also contend that summary judgment should have issued on the pendent state claims because there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to those claims. On the facts as we must take them on this interlocutory appeal, the district court properly ruled that Jones is not entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 and state-law battery claims. However, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under Kentucky law on the state-law negligence and gross negligence claims. Finally, on this interlocutory appeal we lack jurisdiction to address the defendant’s arguments for dismissal of the remaining state-law claims.

Attachments: