Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Amy Corbitt v. Michael Vickers
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 17-15566 · judgment July 10, 2019
Before the decision, about 1.8× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and an Eleventh Circuit decision below.
Questions presented
Officer Vickers and several other police officers pursued a criminal suspect into Amy Corbitt’s yard. Six children, including Corbitt’s ten-year-old son, SDC, were at play. Vickers and his fellow officers ordered the children—at gunpoint—to lie on the ground, face-down. The children complied. Meanwhile, the unarmed criminal suspect was readily compliant with the officers. While holding the children on the ground, weapons drawn, Vickers fired his gun twice at Corbitt’s pet dog. He missed the dog both times. The second time he fired, Vickers shot SDC in the back of the knee, seriously injuring him. SDC, still lying face down on the ground at Vickers’ order, was eighteen inches away from Vickers. Corbitt filed this suit, alleging that Vickers violated SDC’s constitutional rights. In particular, Corbitt alleged that, because Vickers faced no threat, his use of deadly force was unreasonable. Vickers sought dismissal, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied Vickers’ motion, and Vickers took an interlocutory appeal. The Eleventh Circuit, holding that the plaintiff is obligated to plead around qualified immunity, concluded that the complaint failed to establish that qualified immunity is inapplicable. This petition presents two questions:
-
Whether qualified immunity is an affirmative defense (placing the burden on the defendant to raise and prove it) or whether it is a pleading requirement (placing the burden on a plaintiff to plead its absence).
-
Whether the Court should recalibrate or reverse the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Paul Whitfield Hughes
McDermott Will & Emery
For respondent
Richard Keith Strickland
Brown, Readdick, et al.
Proceedings
- Jun 15 2020Petition DENIED.
- Jun 08 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2020.
- Jun 01 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/4/2020.
- May 22 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/28/2020.
- May 18 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/21/2020.
- May 13 2020Rescheduled.
- Apr 28 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020.
- Apr 21 2020Reply of petitioner Amy Corbitt filed.
- Apr 03 2020Brief of respondent Michael Vickers in opposition filed.
- Feb 24 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 8, 2020.
- Feb 20 2020Reply in support of motion filed.
- Feb 19 2020Response to motion from petitioner Amy Corbitt filed.
- Feb 18 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 9, 2020 to April 8, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 16 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 9, 2020.
- Jan 14 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 7, 2020 to March 9, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 08 2020Response Requested. (Due February 7, 2020)
- Dec 20 2019Brief amici curiae of Cross-Ideological Groups Dedicated to Ensuring Official Accountability, Restoring the Public's Trust in Law Enforcement, and Promoting the Rule of Law filed. (Distributed)
- Dec 18 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
- Dec 06 2019Waiver of right of respondent Michael Vickers to respond filed.
- Nov 22 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 26, 2019)
- Sep 20 2019Application (19A309) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until December 6, 2019.
- Sep 16 2019Application (19A309) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 8, 2019 to December 6, 2019, submitted to Justice Thomas.