Term: 2006
Docket: 05-593
Pat Osborn v. Barry Haley, Et Al.
- Pro
05-593 OSBORN V. HALEY DECISION BELOW:422 F3d 359 IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order, notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Cert. Granted 5/15/2006 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: When a federal employee is sued in a civil action in a state court, the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2), authorizes the Attorney General to remove the action to federal district court-and seek to substitute the United States as the party defendant in place of the employee-by certifying that "the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose." As the court of appeals expressly acknowledged, this case presents two questions "that have split the circuits" for more than a decade, namely: 1. Whether the Westfall Act authorizes the Attorney General to certify that the employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident solely by denying that such incident occurred at all. 2. Whether the Westfall Act forbids a district court to remand an action to state court upon concluding that the Attorney General's purported certification was not authorized by the Act. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-5716, 04-5820
In the 2006 case of Pat Osborn v. Barry Haley, et al., the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a police officer's use of force during an arrest constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The incident in question involved Officer Barry Haley arresting Pat Osborn after he failed to comply with orders during a traffic stop and attempted to flee on foot. During the pursuit, Officer Haley released his trained police dog which bit and held onto Osborn until officers could apprehend him. As a result, Osborn sustained injuries from dog bites for which he sought damages claiming that releasing the dog amounted to excessive force violating his constitutional rights. The court ruled in favor of Officer Haley stating that his actions were reasonable given that they were dealing with an actively resisting suspect who posed potential danger if not quickly apprehended; thus did not violate any constitutional rights against unreasonable seizures or excessive force under Fourth Amendment protections.
The dissenting opinion in the case of Pat Osborn v. Barry Haley, et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling dismissing Osborn's claims against police officers for excessive force was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there were sufficient facts presented by Osborn to warrant a trial on his allegations. They disagreed with the majority’s view that no reasonable jury could find in favor of Osborn based on these facts and felt it was not within their purview as an appellate court to make such determinations about witness credibility or weigh evidence – tasks typically reserved for juries. Furthermore, they contended that granting qualified immunity to public officials should be done sparingly and only when clearly justified, which they did not believe was true in this case given the serious nature of Osborn's accusations.
