7 Years And A Supreme Court Visit Later, Court (Again) Rules Cop Can’t Sue Activist Over Violent Acts Committed By Others

I can't even imagine what it must be like to fight an obviously bogus lawsuit for most of a decade. That's what activist DeRay Mckesson has been dealing with since 2017.

Mckesson participated in a protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana all the way back in July 2016. At that protest, Officer John Ford (previously known as John Doe") was struck by a chunk of cement thrown by a protester. In response to this, the officer not only sued Mckesson but also a Twitter hashtag (#blacklivesmatter) and a social movement (Black Lives Matter).

Almost immediately, his lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice by a Louisiana federal court, which ruled he couldn't sue hashtags, social movements, or even the person who organized the protest wherein the officer had been injured by someone other than the person he was suing.

That should have been the end of it. But the officer apparently had plenty of money to burn. Decisions were appealed and re-appealed and, unfortunately, the next court in line to handle the officer's (clearly deficient) complaint was the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

If any appellate court can find a way to keep a cop happy, it's the Fifth. And so it did that very specific job, reviving the lawsuit in 2019 by reasoning that Mckesson's decision to lead the protest onto a freeway was a negligent enough action it justified suing him over an injury caused by another protester, even if it didn't occur during this particular bit of highway blocking.

This went to the Supreme Court, which rejected the Fifth's (third) attempt to get this right, sending it back to the Fifth, which sent it back down to the federal court in Louisiana with the massive amounts of often-contradictory notes it had compiled during its multiple takes on the lawsuit.

Finally, after seven years of litigation, four visits to the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court, and one trip to the nation's top court, the district court in Louisiana has issued a ruling [PDF] that brings everything full circle: this lawsuit is bullshit and always has been. (h/t Short Circuit)

Plaintiff John Ford, a Baton Rouge Police Department officer, was on duty at a demonstration in Baton Rouge on July 9, 2016, when he was struck by a heavy object thrown by an unidentified demonstrator. Ford sued Defendant DeRay Mckesson, now the sole remaining Defendant, alleging that Mckesson negligently organized and led the protest and was therefore liable under Louisiana tort law for Ford's injuries. Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, which argues that Plaintiff's action must be dismissed because the summary judgment evidence shows that Defendant did not organize the protest, breached no duty to Plaintiff, and was not the cause-in-fact of Plaintiff s injuries. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion will be granted, and Plaintiffs action will be dismissed with prejudice.

Even if the court was inclined to read the state tort law as capable of covering acts performed by someone other than the person being sued, it would need a whole lot more connective tissue in terms of the defendant's involvement in the act that injured the officer.

In this case, there's not even evidence that Mckesson organized the protest, much less led it, and... much less committed any illegal act himself or encouraged others to do so.

That section, entitled Mckesson organized and led the protest, references a tweet of the location and time of the protest" that Defendant acknowledged re-tweet[ing]." The section also cites deposition testimony about the organizing of the protest, in which Defendant said that he did not know the organizers personally, and only met them on the night of the protest.

As for Plaintiff's own recollection of the protest, he testified that he did not hear" Defendant giving any orders during the protest, although he heard Defendant [tell protesters] to come out into the road." Finally, Plaintiff submitted a video filmed in part by Defendant during the protest. In the five minutes of the video before Defendant's arrest, Defendant in no way blocks traffic, engages in violence, or gives orders to anyone. Indeed, Defendant appears to be walking in the middle of the protest rather than at the head of it.

Given this, it's impossible to allow the lawsuit to proceed. Doing so would mean anyone in the general vicinity of any incident or occurrence that might involve (at some point) criminal activity could be sued simply for being near the protest (or whatever) where criminal activity occurred. (All emphasis in the original.)

Although Defendant may have participated in similar protests in other places, none of the specific allegations regarding his role in this protest are supported by the evidence. In other words, Plaintiffs case for causation rests solely on Defendant's possible presence at other protests and his possible direction of some protestors into the road. The Court will not impose liability on a protest participant for the actions of an unidentified individual under these circumstances.

Hopefully, that's the end of it. I would have to assume (although IANAL) all appeal options have been exhausted. But this cop has been particularly tenacious in this case, determined to hold perhaps the most recognizable person in this protest at least indirectly responsible for the injury he sustained while policing the protest. But the law doesn't work that way. It never has. But somehow this lawsuit managed to be reviewed by higher courts five times before ending the way it should have ended years ago.