Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that District Courts are not required to properly apply the qualified immunity analysis as to each officer and each claim at the Rule 56 summary judgment stage?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented here are: 1. Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that District Courts are not required to properly apply the qualified immunity analysis as to each officer and each claim at the Rule 56 summary judgment stage? 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that in cases where the qualified immunity defense is properly raised and argued, a District Court may nevertheless refuse to rule, at the summary judgment stage, on each individual officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity as to each claim? 3. Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a District Court need not rule on an individual officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity at the Rule 56 summary judgment stage if the Court deems the facts to be “convoluted?” 4. Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a District Court need not rule on individual officer’s entitlement to summary judgment at the Rule 56 summary judgment stage if Plaintiffs simply make an allegation that officers “acted in concert to violate their constitutional rights?” In this case, the defendants Kenneth Sealey and Robert E. Price, as Administrator C.T.A. of the ii Estate of Joel Garth Locklear, Sr.! properly raised the qualified immunity defense, and clearly argued to the District Court at the Rule 56 summary judgment stage that both Sealey and Locklear were entitled to qualified immunity as to each claim asserted by Plaintiffs. Nevertheless, in denying Sealey and Locklear’s motion for summary judgment, the District Court failed to apply the qualified immunity analysis as to each individual officer as to each of Plaintiffs’ claims. Instead, the District Court stated that, “in light of plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants worked in concert to deny the plaintiffs their constitutional rights, as well as the specifics regarding the grouping of SBI and Robeson County defendants to engage in different aspects of Plaintiffs’ interrogations, arrests, and investigations, the Court will not at this time attempt to parse the liability of each officer as it relates to each claim.” App. 84a. In other words, the District Court refused to apply the qualified immunity analysis to the specific actions of Sealey and Locklear at the summary judgment stage and, instead, postponed until trial a ruling on Sealey and Locklear’s entitlement to qualified immunity as to each of Plaintiffs’ claims. Id. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s refusal to rule on Sealey and Locklear’s entitlement to qualified immunity as to each of Plaintiffs’ claims at the summary judgment stage, holding that “it would be counterproductive to require 1 Shortly after being served, Officer Joel Garth Locklear, Sr. passed away. Thereafter, Robert E. Price, as Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Joel Garth Locklear, Sr., was substituted as a party. In an attempt to avoid confusion, this Petition will refer to this defendant as “Locklear.” iii a district court to wade through convoluted issues of fact at this stage” in order to determine Sealey and Locklear’s entitlement to qualified immunity. App. 22a.