## Facts

- Willie Massey alleged that on November 4, 1992, he was asleep in a vacant building when Prince George’s County police officers awakened him and, without warning, deployed a police dog on him.
- Massey claimed he did not resist, but the dog bit him repeatedly, causing serious and permanent injuries.
- The officers denied liability, asserting they gave a loud warning and that Massey resisted arrest.
- Massey asserted state-law assault and battery claims against individual officers and federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment excessive force.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the seizure and force were reasonable as a matter of law and relying chiefly on persuasive out-of-circuit authority upholding canine use in similar circumstances.
- The court initially granted summary judgment on the federal § 1983 claims based on the parties’ submissions and the authority presented.
- During later briefing on remaining issues, a controlling Fourth Circuit decision involving similar disputed facts regarding canine deployment was cited for the first time.
- The county’s separate § 1983 municipal-liability issues were bifurcated and deferred pending resolution of individual officer liability.

## Issues

1. Whether counsel had a professional duty to disclose controlling, directly adverse authority from the governing circuit when it was not raised by the opposing party.
2. Whether controlling circuit precedent required denial of summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive-force claim where material facts were disputed about warnings and resistance during police-dog deployment.

## Decision

- The court sua sponte reconsidered and reversed its prior ruling that had dismissed the federal § 1983 excessive-force claims.
- The court held that controlling Fourth Circuit precedent made summary judgment inappropriate given genuine disputes about whether a warning was given and whether Massey resisted arrest.
- The court retained the case in federal court for further proceedings on the reinstated federal claims.
- The court initiated a show-cause process addressing the failure to bring controlling adverse authority to the court’s attention.
- The bifurcated municipal-liability issues remained deferred pending determination of individual officer liability.

## Legal Principles

- In a Fourth Amendment excessive-force case involving a police dog, summary judgment is improper when material facts are genuinely disputed about the adequacy of warnings and whether the suspect resisted arrest versus merely reacting to the dog’s biting.
- A federal district court must follow controlling circuit precedent over conflicting or more favorable persuasive authority from other circuits.
- Lawyers have a duty of candor to the tribunal, including an affirmative obligation to disclose controlling, directly adverse legal authority in the governing jurisdiction when it is known and has not been disclosed by opposing counsel.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated Massey’s § 1983 excessive-force claims because controlling circuit precedent required a fact-finder to resolve disputed questions about warnings and resistance in the police-dog encounter, and it separately addressed counsel’s obligation to disclose controlling adverse authority to prevent legally erroneous rulings based on incomplete presentations of the law.


Massey v. Prince George’s Cnty., 907 F. Supp. 138 (D. Md. 1995)