“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A man arrested for armed robbery sued police officers for excessive use of force.
What happened in this case?
Rafael Cendan was stopped by police after a car chase in connection with a robbery in Florida. After the chase, he was thrown from his car and beaten by some police officers. While the facts remain in dispute, including when he stopped resisting arrest, the record shows that “by the end of the encounter,” Cendan suffered serious injuries. His right eye “popped out of its socket” and his left eye was “severely injured,” so that he became “blind in his right eye” and has “significantly impaired vision” in his left. He had “25 fractured bones in his face alone” and “part of his skull was caved in.” He “lost his top front teeth and a bone still protrudes into his jaw.” He had a “broken jaw” and a “deviated septum.” Some ten years after the incident, “his fellow inmates call him ‘the Martian’ on account of his resulting deformities.” Although convicted of armed robbery, Cendan filed suit against a number of police officers for excessive use of force.
The district court granted qualified immunity to the officers during the period that Cendan was resisting arrest, and a jury found for the officers after the resistance stopped. The case was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit on the qualified immunity issue.
In September, Trump judge Kevin Newsom joined by Biden judge Embry Kidd issued a 2-1 decision that rejected the appeal and affirmed the ruling against Cendan in Cendan v Trujillo. Biden judge Nancy Abudu strongly dissented. The majority held that Cendan had failed to show a “clearly established” constitutional right as to which there was a “genuine dispute of material fact.”
Why did Judge Abudu dissent?
Judge Abudu’s primary concern was that the record “simply is not clear” as to when Cendan stopped resisting arrest and when the lower court and the jury so determined. Accordingly, she explained, the summary judgment decision below should be vacated and the case should be remanded so the order can be clarified. Although this could result in upholding the immunity order, it could also result in reversal of that order against the officers.
Why is this decision harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Newsom obviously harms Rafael Cendan and prevents him from recovering any damages for the severe injuries he suffered at the hands of the police. It also sets a bad precedent concerning evaluation of excessive force and qualified immunity claims, particularly in the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Florida, Alabama, and Georgia. In addition, the ruling illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.