King v. Davis

── King v. Davis ── Case No.: 25-966 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 18, 2026 Category: General 25-966 King v. Davis UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges, JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge. * _____________________________________ Brian King, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 25-966 Stephen C. Davis III, Police Officer, City of Potsdam Police Department, individually and officially, Peter G. Judge Jesse M. Furman, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of * New York, sitting by designation. Lasala, Police Officer, City of Potsdam Police Department, individually and officially, Corbin Gates-Shult, Police Officer, City of Potsdam Police Department, individually and officially, Village of Potsdam, Officers John Doe 1-5, Potsdam Police Department, Defendants-Appellees, Ryan Robinson, Police Officer, City of Potsdam Police Department, Defendant. † _____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: WOODRUFF LEE CARROLL, Woodruff Lee Carroll P.C., Syracuse, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: APRIL J. LAWS, Olivia G. Reinhardt, Johnson & Laws, LLC, Clifton Park, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Scullin, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is † The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption. 2 AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED. Plaintiff-Appellant Brian King appeals a March 24, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Scullin, J.) entering summary judgment for defendants, and a June 4, 2025 order of that court imposing a $1,000 sanction on defense counsel. Plaintiff argues that there exists a material dispute of fact as to whether officers used excessive force or acted negligently when they removed him from his vehicle in order to arrest him for driving while intoxicated. He also argues that his counsel’s repeated violation of the district court’s orders and failure to file properly formatted briefs with appropriate citations did not merit sanctions. We conclude that the district court erred in dismissing King’s negligence claim and vacate and remand for further proceedings. We otherwise affirm. We review the district court’s entry of summary judgment de novo, construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor. See Covington Specialty Ins. Co. v. Indian Lookout Country Club, Inc., 62 F.4th 748, 752 (2d Cir. 2023). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to