Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Watson v. Pearson

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

June 28, 2019

Joseph D. Watson, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Patrick Pearson, et al., Defendants, David Mendez and Ron Talbott, in their official and individual capacities; Blount County Sheriff's Office; Blount County, Tennessee, Defendants-Appellees.

          Argued: May 1, 2019

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville. No. 3:14-cv-00595-Thomas A. Varlan, District Judge.

         ARGUED:

          Tillman J. Breckenridge, PIERCE BAINBRIDGE LLP, Washington, D.C., Evan D. Lewis, WILLIAM & MARY APPELLATE AND SUPREME COURT CLINIC, Williamsburg, Virginia, for Appellant.

          Peako Jenkins, OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees Mendez and Talbott.

         ON BRIEF:

          Tillman J. Breckenridge, PIERCE BAINBRIDGE LLP, Washington, D.C., Evan D. Lewis, WILLIAM & MARY APPELLATE AND SUPREME COURT CLINIC, Williamsburg, Virginia, for Appellant.

          Peako Jenkins, OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees Mendez and Talbott. Craig L. Garrett, Maryville, Tennessee, for Blount County Appellees.

          GILMAN, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which CLAY, J., joined.

          Before: CLAY, GILMAN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

          OPINION

          RONALD LEE GILMAN, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

         Joseph D. Watson filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that law-enforcement officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by engaging in a warrantless search of the curtilage surrounding the residence where he was found. The district court agreed that the officers had violated Watson's Fourth Amendment rights, but held that those rights were not clearly established at the time of the officers' actions. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. Watson then filed this timely appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         In December 2013, law-enforcement officers Patrick Pearson and David Mendez attempted to serve a civil levy on Watson at his last-known address. Pearson and Mendez knocked on the front door of Watson's presumed residence for approximately twenty ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.