Federal judge dismisses Baton Rouge police officer’s lawsuit against Alton Sterling protester

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana (BRPROUD) – A federal judge has ruled that a man who participated in a 2016 protest over the death of Alton Sterling cannot be held responsible for injuring a Baton Rouge police officer.

The lawsuit argued that DeRay Mckesson organized a protest in Baton Rouge during which a police officer was injured when another protester hit him in the face with a piece of concrete.

U.S. Judge Brian Jackson ruled that McKesson could not be held responsible for sharing information about the time and place and for attending the event without evidence that he led the crowd or incited violence.

On Friday, July 12, Mckesson posted on X: “I was arrested on my birthday in 2016. And having the judge hand down the sentence the day after my birthday in 2024 feels like a full circle.”

He said Jackson’s decision “exposes all the holes and lies in this case.”

The ACLU called it “a major victory for our right to protest.”

The history of the suit

On July 9, 2016, Baton Rouge police officer John Ford was struck by a heavy object thrown at him by a protester during a protest over the death of Alton Sterling.

In November of that year, Ford sued DeRay Mckesson and Black Lives Matter, claiming they were responsible for Ford’s injuries because they helped organize the protest. The court found that BLM was a social movement that could not be sued in court.

The court dismissed the case against Mckesson, saying there was no evidence that Mckesson directed any activities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned the dismissal. The judges said he could be held liable for allegedly leading protesters into the streets, which is a crime in Louisiana.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that a protest leader could be sued for negligence.

Jackson noted that at the motion to dismiss stage, which was considered by the Fifth Circuit, all of the plaintiff’s arguments must be considered true. They look at those claims in the most favorable light, as if the argument could succeed in court. That is not the same as saying the arguments are true and successful.

The Fifth Circuit ruled that Ford could sue Mckesson provided the alleged facts were accurate.

Ford filed an amended complaint against Mckesson alone. The defendant then moved for summary judgment.

Mckesson appealed the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. Her appeal was denied on April 17.

Why the judge dismissed the lawsuits

Jackson wrote that the seven-year-old case needed resolution. At the summary judgment stage, Ford’s arguments were not supported by “sufficient evidence.”

Jackson also noted in a footnote that Ford’s legal team had submitted 38 pieces of evidence in support of the opposition to Mckesson’s motion, none of which was disclosed to the defense during the evidentiary hearing. The judge called it a “blatant and inexcusable violation” of the rules and said any of that evidence could result in sanctions. Moreover, the information did not meet all of the criteria for admissibility.

The judge relied on witness testimony and videos that Mckesson took at the event. The footage, he said, appeared to show that the defendant was in the middle of the crowd and not leading it, nor did it show that he had committed any illegal act in the five minutes before his arrest.

Mckesson said he did not help organize the event, but simply retweeted someone else’s message with the date and time and attended. Mckesson also did not know the event organizers until he met them the night of the protest.

Ford argued that Mckesson probably threw his water bottle at police because he was later seen picking one up, although no one claimed to have seen Mckesson throw it. Jackson called it idle speculation.

The evidence, Jackson wrote, did not meet the Fifth Circuit’s burden of proof. To succeed, Ford would have had to show that Mckesson organized the protest, failed to stop protesters from looting a store or throwing objects at police despite having some control over the crowd, and that he had participated in similarly violent protests across the country.

Instead, the judge said, Ford made “his own self-serving, unverified and inconsistent statement” that Mckesson led people onto the Airline Highway.

Ford said he did not hear Mckesson leading the crowd, and later said he heard the other man urging others to block the street. Jackson concluded that was not enough to hold Mckesson responsible for Ford’s injuries.

Even if he had led the people out into the street, Jackson wrote, Mckesson could not be held responsible for someone else later hitting Ford in the face with concrete.

Even if Mckesson may have participated in other protests and possibly led people onto the streets, this is not enough, Jackson wrote.

Because plaintiffs’ original allegations regarding Mckesson’s leadership were destroyed by the evidence, the Court will simply not hold Mckesson liable for the minor, disputed role he played. This would represent a significant expansion of tort liability that is unsupported by precedent and would dramatically increase the liability of all protest participants – not just protest leaders – at protests across the District. This, in turn, would impermissibly restrict free speech and limit the right to protest.

US Judge Brian Jackson

Latest news