Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_12-cv-00315/USCOURTS-ared-3_12-cv-00315-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

JERRY TODD BREWER PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. 3:12CV00315 BSM

JEREMY WHEELIS, 

in his Individual Capacity DEFENDANT

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This case was tried to the bench on July 13, 2015. Having listened to the testimony

and reviewed the exhibits introduced into evidence, judgment is entered for defendant

Jeremy Wheelis, and against plaintiff Jerry Todd Brewer.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiff Jerry Todd Brewer was at the home he shared with a female roommate when

she and his girlfriend came to the residence drunk. Brewer was on parole and his girlfriend

was on probation, so he was upset that his roommate had taken his girlfriend out and gotten

drunk. Consequently, he began to argue with his roommate, who called the police.

By the time Jonesboro police officers Jeremy Wheelis and Rick Davis responded to

the call, Brewer had left the residence, so Wheelis drove around the neighborhood to locate

him. When Wheelis returned to the residence, Brewer was standing against the house. 

Wheelis called Brewer’s parole officer, who informed him that, per the terms of Brewer’s

parole and his girlfriend’s probation, they were not supposed to be together. Davis entered

the house to take Brewer’s girlfriend into custody, while Wheelis approached Brewer. 

Although Brewer did not recognize Wheelis, the officer recognized Brewer from a previous

Case 3:12-cv-00315-BSM Document 96 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 4
arrest. Neither man had ever had a bad encounter with, nor harbored ill-will toward, the

other.

Wheelis told Brewer he was under arrest, and placed him into handcuffs. He then

stood behind Brewer and removed Brewer’s hat from his head. In doing so, Wheelis

inadvertently pulled on some of Brewer’s hair, which caused Brewer to instinctively jerk his

head forward. Believing Brewer to be agitated, Wheelis pushed Brewer against a vehicle that

was parked in the driveway and then attempted to turn Brewer around and take him to the

ground. In doing so, Wheelis was unable to support Brewer’s body weight and Brewer fell

hard to the concrete “like a sack of potatoes” and injured his nose and knee. Wheelis helped

Brewer into a chair, found a rag to staunch the bleeding on Brewer’s nose, and called an

ambulance. Brewer was transported to the hospital for treatment and then placed into

custody.

Both Brewer and Wheelis were credible witnesses and neither appeared to give

testimony with the intent to mislead the fact-finder. Moreover, apart from a few details, their

accounts of the arrest are very similar. 

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Judgment is entered for Wheelis because Brewer did not suffer a constitutional

violation. Further, even if Brewer suffered a constitutional violation, judgment would be

entered for Wheelis because he is immune from this lawsuit. 

42 U.S.C. section 1983 is not a source of substantive rights, but is merely a vehicle

to vindicate rights elsewhere conferred. See Roach v. City of Fredericktown, Mo., 882 F.2d

2

Case 3:12-cv-00315-BSM Document 96 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 4
294, 297 (8th Cir. 1989). Negligence, even gross negligence, does not amount to a section

1983 claim. See id. Thus, the initial inquiry is whether Brewer suffered the violation of a

constitutional right through Wheelis’s use of force, which Brewer contends was excessive.

The standard for determining excessive force is whether the force used was

objectively reasonable under the particular circumstances. See Coker v. Arkansas State

Police, 734 F.3d 838, 842 (8th Cir. 2013). Reasonableness is judged from the perspective

of a reasonable officer on the scene, without the benefit of hindsight. Id. During an arrest,

an officer is permitted to use some degree of physical coercion or threat. Id. Additionally,

a court must balance an individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the relevant

governmental interests. Id. Relevant considerations may include:

[T]he severity of the crime; whether the suspect poses a threat of harm to

others; whether the suspect is resisting arrest . . . whether the situation is

‘tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving,’ which would force an officer to make

‘split-second judgments’ about how much force is necessary.

Id. at 842–43. The severity of the plaintiff’s injuries may also be considered, as well as

whether the police used standard procedures. Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 826 (8th Cir.

2007).

Brewer’s excessive force claim is based on three of Wheelis’s acts. In the first act,

Wheelis snatched Brewer’s hat from his head and accidently pulled Brewer’s hair. When,

as a reflex, Brewer jerked his head, Wheelis committed the second and third acts, which were

pushing Brewer against a vehicle and then taking him to the ground. Wheelis contends that,

at most, he may be guilty of negligence. Brewer agrees that Wheelis did not attempt to hurt

him when Wheelis took him to the ground, and that Wheelis probably did not realize how

heavy Brewer was and lost control.

3

Case 3:12-cv-00315-BSM Document 96 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 4
Judgment is entered for Wheelis because neither pulling Brewer’s hat off his head, nor

pushing Brewer into the vehicle rise to the level of excessive force, especially given the

circumstances. Further, although the take-down could, under different circumstances,

possibly rise to the level of excessive force, there is agreement that Wheelis did not intend

to hurt Brewer and that, at most, his actions were negligent, which is not actionable under

section 1983. See Roach, 882 F.2d at 297. Finally, judged from the perspective of a

reasonable officer on the scene, none of Wheelis’s actions, even when taken together,

constitute excessive force. If Wheelis’s conduct were to be considered excessive force,

nearly every arrest would result in a constitutional violation.

Wheelis is also entitled to qualified immunity. In considering whether to grant

qualified immunity, a determination must be made as to: (1) whether the facts shown by the

plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether that right

was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. Estate of Morgan

v. Cook, 686 F.3d 494, 496 (8th Cir. 2012). Brewer has not shown that Wheelis’s conduct

resulted in the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Simply put, there is no

clearly established constitutional right for an arrestee to be free from hat removal, being

placed against a car, or being taken to the ground under the circumstances of this case.

Consequently, judgment is entered in favor of Wheelis and an appropriate judgment

shall accompany this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of July 2015.

________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 3:12-cv-00315-BSM Document 96 Filed 07/21/15 Page 4 of 4