Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Selina Marie Ramirez, et al. v. Jeremias Guadarrama, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 20-10055 · judgment February 8, 2021
Before the decision, about 2.9× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Fifth Circuit decision below, counsel with five or more prior petitions here, and a circuit split argued in the petition.
Question presented
After being called to assist a man suffering from a mental-health crisis who had doused himself with gasoline, police officers deployed their tasers on the man despite recognizing that “[i]f we Tase him, he is going to light on fire.” Use of the tasers lit the man on fire and killed him. In this Section 1983 action brought by the victim’s survivors, the Fifth Circuit held—at the motion-to-dismiss stage—that the complaint failed to state an excessive-force claim as a matter of law because it did not identify an alternative course of action that “would have” resolved the situation without “potential tragedy.” The question presented is: To defeat a motion to dismiss in a Section 1983 suit alleging that officers used excessive force, must plaintiffs plead as an element of their claim that the officers had an available alternative that “would have” avoided the harm? (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Catherine Emily Stetson
Hogan Lovells US LLP
For respondent
Edwin Armstrong Price Voss Jr.
Brown & Hofmeister, LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 16 conferences
Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage
Argument & decision
Decided June 30, 2022.
Proceedings
- Jun 30 2022Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan join, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)
- Jun 29 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2022.
- Jun 23 2022Rescheduled.
- Jun 21 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/23/2022.
- Jun 13 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/16/2022.
- Jun 13 2022Rescheduled.
- Jun 06 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/9/2022.
- Jun 06 2022Rescheduled.
- May 31 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/2/2022.
- May 31 2022Rescheduled.
- May 23 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/26/2022.
- May 23 2022Rescheduled.
- May 16 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/19/2022.
- May 16 2022Rescheduled.
- May 10 2022Rescheduled.
- May 09 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
- Apr 25 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/29/2022.
- Apr 25 2022Rescheduled.
- Apr 19 2022Rescheduled.
- Apr 18 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/22/2022.
- Apr 12 2022Rescheduled.
- Apr 11 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2022.
- Mar 28 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2022.
- Mar 28 2022Rescheduled.
- Mar 22 2022Rescheduled.
- Mar 21 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/25/2022.
- Mar 15 2022Rescheduled.
- Mar 14 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.
- Mar 01 2022Rescheduled.
- Feb 28 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/4/2022.
- Feb 22 2022Rescheduled.
- Feb 09 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/25/2022.
- Feb 09 2022Reply of petitioners Selina Ramirez, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Jan 26 2022Brief of respondent Jeremias Guadarrama in opposition filed.
- Jan 26 2022Brief of respondent Ebony N. Jefferson in opposition filed.
- Dec 23 2021Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
- Dec 17 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 26, 2022, for all respondents.
- Dec 16 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 27, 2021 to January 26, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 22 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 27, 2021)