Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02463/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02463-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Jeanne J. Graham, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2463

___________

Erik Becerra, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

John Doe, Woodbury Supervisor of *

Police Officers; Police Officer John * [UNPUBLISHED]

Doe, Woodbury; Police Officer John *

Doe, Woodbury; S. Schnieder, MN *

State Trooper; Fran Schmitz; Nicholas *

Krueger, St. Croix Wis. Police Officer, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 5, 2010

Filed: March 25, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action involving allegations that law enforcement

officers used excessive force in arresting him, Erik Becerra appeals the district

court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment. Following careful de novo review, see

Appellate Case: 09-2463 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010 Entry ID: 3648325
-2-

Ramlet v. E.F. Johnson Co., 507 F.3d 1149, 1152 (8th Cir. 2007), we conclude that

Becerra did not establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the objective

reasonableness of defendants’ use of force, see Nance v. Sammis, 586 F.3d 604, 609-

10 (8th Cir. 2009) (claim that officers used excessive force during arrest properly

analyzed under Fourth Amendment; objective reasonableness of officers’ use of force

is evaluated by looking at totality of circumstances confronting officers, including

severity of crime at issue, whether suspect poses immediate threat to safety of officers

or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade by flight);

Wertish v. Krueger, 433 F.3d 1062, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2006) (given driver’s erratic and

dangerous driving for many miles on public highway, ignoring flashing lights and

wailing siren, officer could reasonably have suspected driver was fleeing under

influence of drugs or alcohol and therefore posed serious threat to public safety; minor

bruises and scrapes and aggravation of previous condition were de minimis injuries

that supported conclusion that officer did not use excessive force); cf. Wilkins v.

Gaddy, 2010 WL 596513, *1 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2010) (No. 08-10914) (per curiam) (in

prisoner’s § 1983 action, reaffirming holding that nature of force, and not extent of

injury, is what ultimately counts in excessive force case). In addition, the court cited

the appropriate criteria and did not abuse its discretion in denying Becerra’s motion

for appointed counsel. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.

2006) (standard of review; relevant criteria).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2463 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2010 Entry ID: 3648325