From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sause v. Bauer

Supreme Court of the United States
Jun 28, 2018
138 S. Ct. 2561 (2018)

Summary

holding that district courts must liberally construe filings from unrepresented litigants

Summary of this case from Hassel v. Centric Bank

Opinion

No. 17–742.

06-28-2018

Mary Anne SAUSE v. Timothy J. BAUER, et al.


Petitioner Mary Ann Sause, proceeding pro se, filed this action under Rev. Stat. 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and named as defendants past and present members of the Louisburg, Kansas, police department, as well as the current mayor and a former mayor of the town. The centerpiece of her complaint was the allegation that two of the town's police officers visited her apartment in response to a noise complaint, gained admittance to her apartment, and then proceeded to engage in a course of strange and abusive conduct, before citing her for disorderly conduct and interfering with law enforcement. Among other things, she alleged that at one point she knelt and began to pray but one of the officers ordered her to stop. She claimed that a third officer refused to investigate her complaint that she had been assaulted by residents of her apartment complex and had threatened to issue a citation if she reported this to another police department. In addition, she alleged that the police chief failed to follow up on a promise to investigate the officers' conduct and that the present and former mayors were aware of unlawful conduct by the town's police officers.

Petitioner's complaint asserted a violation of her First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion and her Fourth Amendment right to be free of any unreasonable search or seizure. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, arguing that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Petitioner then moved to amend her complaint, but the District Court denied that motion and granted the motion to dismiss.

On appeal, petitioner, now represented by counsel, argued only that her free exercise rights were violated by the two officers who entered her home. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court, concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. 859 F.3d 1270 (2017). Chief Judge Tymkovich filed a concurring opinion. While agreeing with the majority regarding petitioner's First Amendment claim, he noted that petitioner's "allegations fit more neatly in the Fourth Amendment context." Id., at 1279. He also observed that if the allegations in the complaint are true, the conduct of the officers "should be condemned," and that if the allegations are untrue, petitioner had "done the officers a grave injustice." Ibid.

The petition filed in this Court contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the officers who visited petitioner's home are entitled to qualified immunity. The petition argues that it was clearly established that law enforcement agents violate a person's right to the free exercise of religion if they interfere, without any legitimate law enforcement justification, when a person is at prayer. The petition further maintains that the absence of a prior case involving the unusual situation alleged to have occurred here does not justify qualified immunity.

There can be no doubt that the First Amendment protects the right to pray. Prayer unquestionably constitutes the "exercise" of religion. At the same time, there are clearly circumstances in which a police officer may lawfully prevent a person from praying at a particular time and place. For example, if an officer places a suspect under arrest and orders the suspect to enter a police vehicle for transportation to jail, the suspect does not have a right to delay that trip by insisting on first engaging in conduct that, at another time, would be protected by the First Amendment. When an officer's order to stop praying is alleged to have occurred during the course of investigative conduct that implicates Fourth Amendment rights, the First and Fourth Amendment issues may be inextricable.

That is the situation here. As the case comes before us, it is unclear whether the police officers were in petitioner's apartment at the time in question based on her consent, whether they had some other ground consistent with the Fourth Amendment for entering and remaining there, or whether their entry or continued presence was unlawful. Petitioner's complaint contains no express allegations on these matters. Nor does her complaint state what, if anything, the officers wanted her to do at the time when she was allegedly told to stop praying. Without knowing the answers to these questions, it is impossible to analyze petitioner's free exercise claim.

In considering the defendants' motion to dismiss, the District Court was required to interpret the pro se complaint liberally, and when the complaint is read that way, it may be understood to state Fourth Amendment claims that could not properly be dismissed for failure to state a claim. We appreciate that petitioner elected on appeal to raise only a First Amendment argument and not to pursue an independent Fourth Amendment claim, but under the circumstances, the First Amendment claim demanded consideration of the ground on which the officers were present in the apartment and the nature of any legitimate law enforcement interests that might have justified an order to stop praying at the specific time in question. Without considering these matters, neither the free exercise issue nor the officers' entitlement to qualified immunity can be resolved. Thus, petitioner's choice to abandon her Fourth Amendment claim on appeal did not obviate the need to address these matters.

For these reasons, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari; we reverse the judgment of the Tenth Circuit; and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Sause v. Bauer

Supreme Court of the United States
Jun 28, 2018
138 S. Ct. 2561 (2018)

holding that district courts must liberally construe filings from unrepresented litigants

Summary of this case from Hassel v. Centric Bank

finding that a pro se complaint could be understood to allege Fourth Amendment claims that must be addressed in considering a motion to dismiss

Summary of this case from Meeks v. Martin

reversing grant of qualified immunity in a case seeking damages under § 1983 based on alleged violations of free exercise rights and Fourth Amendment rights

Summary of this case from Tanzin v. Tanvir

reversing dismissal of a pro se complaint based on the defendants' entitlement qualified immunity where the district court failed to liberally interpret the Fourth Amendment claims

Summary of this case from Hutcheson v. Dallas Cnty.

reversing dismissal of a pro se complaint based on the defendants' entitlement qualified immunity where the district court failed to liberally interpret the Fourth Amendment claims

Summary of this case from Woolum v. City of Dall.

illustrating that Fourth Amendment interests can be critical to resolving First Amendment questions

Summary of this case from Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't

noting that district courts must liberally construe filings from pro se litigants

Summary of this case from Naranjo v. Walter

noting that courts must interpret pro se filings liberally

Summary of this case from Cotton v. Damiter

In Sause, the Supreme Court explained that the Free Exercise Clause may have been violated by a police officer's order to the plaintiff, while he was inside her apartment investigating a noise complaint, to stop praying.

Summary of this case from Friend v. Shoemaker

noting that district courts must liberally construe filings from pro se litigants

Summary of this case from Whiting v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.

noting that district courts must liberally construe filings from unrepresented litigants

Summary of this case from Dongarra v. Smith

stating that the First Amendment undoubtedly "protects the right to pray," but noting that a law enforcement officer "may lawfully prevent a person from praying at a particular time and place" and citing, as an example, that an officer arresting a suspect may order the suspect into a patrol car for transportation without permitting the suspect "to delay that trip by insisting on first engaging in conduct that, at another time would be protected by the First Amendment"

Summary of this case from Cato v. Hargrove

noting that district court must liberally construe filings from unrepresented litigants

Summary of this case from Saillant v. Hoover

requiring the Court to construe a pro se complaint "liberally"

Summary of this case from Shim v. Cavalry Portofolio Servs., LLC

requiring the Court "to interpret pro se complaint liberally"

Summary of this case from Richardson v. NES Ga. Inc.-TRM

remanding free exercise and qualified immunity claims for factual development concerning how officers obtained access to plaintiff's apartment and what officers wanted her to do when they ordered her to stop praying

Summary of this case from Krupien v. Ritcey
Case details for

Sause v. Bauer

Case Details

Full title:Mary Anne SAUSE v. Timothy J. BAUER, et al.

Court:Supreme Court of the United States

Date published: Jun 28, 2018

Citations

138 S. Ct. 2561 (2018)
129 S. Ct. 315
201 L. Ed. 2d 982
172 L. Ed. 2d 229

Citing Cases

Villarreal v. The City of Laredo, Tex.

Because Villarreal's First Amendment free speech claim arises from her arrest and is inextricable from her…

Villarreal v. City of Laredo, Tex.

Id. Perhaps the decision most analogous to this appeal is Sause v. Bauer , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2561,…