Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-25-2024

Case Style:

Amanda Rakes v. Jonathan P. Roeder, et al.

Case Number: 4:21-CV-114

Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Floyd County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:



Click Here For The Best New Albanay Lawyer Directory




Defendant's Attorney: Not Available

Description:


New Albany, Indiana civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff.


On the night of July 18, 2019 in Charlestown, Indiana, bystanders called 911 to report that a man, RJ
Slaymaker (RJ), and a woman, Amylyn Slaymaker (Amylyn), were fighting in the middle of a residential street. Two police
officers responded to the call and separated RJ and Amylyn. Amylyn told the officers that RJ (her husband) was drunk,
had hit her, had guns on him and at their house, and was threatening to kill her and himself. RJ denied hitting her or
making any threats. The officers called an ambulance for RJ so he could get help with mental health issues at a nearby
hospital. After RJ left in the ambulance, the officers allegedly told Amylyn that RJ would be kept at the hospital under a 24-hour mental health hold.

But if they did say that to Amylyn, it was not true: neither the officers nor anyone else placed RJ under a hold. Instead,
the officers merely encouraged him to seek help voluntarily.RJ left the hospital shortly after arriving and returned to thehouse that he shared with Amylyn. There, he shot and killed Amylyn, then himself.

The administrator of Amylyn’s estate subsequently brought this action against Officer Roederer and the estate of
Officer Johnson (who died shortly before this litigation). She primarily relies on the state-created danger doctrine, under which state officials can in limited circumstances be held liable under section 1983 for recklessly placing plaintiffs at risk of harm from third parties. The district court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and granted summary judgment on that basis.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: