Ray v. Roane

The court dismissed a Fourth Amendment claim based on a deputy sheriff shooting and killing the plaintiff’s dog, which he claimed was approaching him and barking. Shooting the dog was a reasonable seizure under the circumstances, and the officer was entitled to qualified immunity in any event. Denying the defendant’s motion for sanctions, the court nevertheless warned:

“[T]he court cautions plaintiff’s counsel, as it has in other cases, that the type of inflammatory language used in the complaint here will not be tolerated in this court…. [L]anguage contained in paragraph 3 (describing Roane’s driving approach “like a bat out of hell, screeching to a halt”); paragraph 5 (“drunk and emboldened with power”), paragraph 1 (“blowing his brains out execution style”), and paragraphs 4, 39, 40 (“execution-style”), at a minimum, would fall within the type of inflammatory characterizations not appropriate for a federal complaint.”

Ray v. Roane, No. 5:17cv93, Sept. 20, 2018. WDVA at Harrisonburg (Dillon).

Categories: U.S. District Court - Western District of Virginia

Tags: , ,

%d bloggers like this: