Michael Baltes v. Arrowhead Lake Community Association, Inc. and Frank DeGrand (2006)- Case StudyPlace Your Order Now
How Does Our System Work?
It will take just three steps and two minutes to place your order
Submit your Question
Fill in the order form with all your instructions. Click submit then complete payment for your order.
Best Writer Assigned
We review your order's requirements to determine the most suited writer for it. We then assign it.
Calculate the price of your order
Michael Baltes v. Arrowhead Lake Community Association, Inc. and Frank DeGrand (2006)- Assignment
Michael Baltes v. Arrowhead Lake Community Association, Inc. and Frank DeGrand (2006) Case Analysis
Facts of the Case
According to the plaintiff, he was driving through the residential development of the defendant in October 2002 when he was pursued by the defendant's security personnel with sirens and lights activated. The private security personnel continued chasing him until they were outside the property development. In the course of the chase, the second defendant who was the first defendant's chief of security was contacted by the pursuers and got an order from him to continue with the pursuit. The second defendant also joined the chase and fired a gun at the plaintiff's vehicle several times. Finally, the second defendant and his subordinates caught up with the plaintiff and arrested him. The plaintiff alleges that they punched, kicked, threw him out of his car, and put handcuffs on him. The plaintiff further alleged that one of the defendant's security guards who could not be identified pointed a gun at his head. It was as a result of these actions by the defendants and their agents that the plaintiff brought a civil action for deprivation of rights in a federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleged that his civil rights were violated by the defendants acting under the color of state law. In a counter-claim rejoinder, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
The Outcome of the Case
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s case and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. According to the court, a party is entitled to summary judgment as of right where there is no genuine issue of material fact for consideration by the court. The court also considered that for a plaintiff to establish a claim under section 1983, they must prove, first, that the conduct ..............GET A PLAGIARISM FREE COPY