Brooks v. Gaenzle, No. 09-1489, concerned an action claiming that defendant-officers violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure by use of excessive force when they shot him after he fled the scene of a violent crime.  The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the grounds that 1) the authorities did not gain “intentional acquisition of physical control” over plaintiff; 2) the mere use of physical force or show of authority alone, without termination of movement or submission, did not constitute a seizure; and 3) the officer’s gunshot may have intentionally struck plaintiff, but it clearly did not terminate his movement or otherwise cause the government to have physical control over him.

In Stanko v. Davis, No. 09-1073, a felon in possession case, the court affirmed the dismissal of petitioner’s habeas petition, holding that 1) a federal prisoner does not need prior circuit authorization to bring a second or successive 28 U.S.C. section 2241 petition; 2) the pre-AEDPA principles still applied to such petitions; and 3) the district court properly dismissed petitioner’s petition, which was both successive and abusive.

Related Resources

  • Full Text of Brooks v. Gaenzle, No. 09-1489
  • Full Text of Frederick v. Swift Transp. Co., No. 09-3080
  • Full Text of Stanko v. Davis, No. 09-1073

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules