Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-01962/USCOURTS-ca8-14-01962-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1962

___________________________

Eva Robinson; Ron Robinson

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs

Matthew Robinson

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Steven Payton, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Marshal for the

City of Dover; Kristopher Stevens, Individually, and in his Official Capacity as a

Sergeant for the Pope County Sheriff's Department

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants

Stewart Condley, Individually, and in his Official Capacity as a Corporal for the

Arkansas State Police

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

Rod Pfeifer, Individually, and in his Official Capacity as the Chief Marshal of the

City of Dover Marshal's Office; Aaron Duvall, Individually, and in his Official

Capacity as Sheriff of Pope County; City of Dover; Dover Marshal's Office; Pope

County Arkansas; Pope County Sheriff's Department; Arkansas State Police; Chris

Goodman, Individually, and in his Official Capacity as a Trooper for the Arkansas

State Police

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants

____________

Appellate Case: 14-1962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Entry ID: 4289497 
Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: January 14, 2015

 Filed: June 29, 2015

____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

____________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Matthew Robinson sued Arkansas State Trooper Stewart Condley under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Trooper Condley failed to stop another law enforcement

officer's use of excessive force. Trooper Condley filed a motion for summary

judgment asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, holding

a jury could find that Trooper Condley violated Matthew Robinson's clearly

established constitutional right to be free from excessive force. Trooper Condley

appeals. Because Trooper Condley's duty to intervene in the circumstances of this

case was not clearly established, we reverse.

 I

On September 13, 2011, Eva Robinson and her son Matthew Robinson were

walking their dog in front of their home. Steven Payton, a part-time Deputy Marshal

for the City of Dover Marshal's Office, observed "suspicious people walking." He

saw one of the suspicious people, Matthew, throw something into the grass. He

stopped Matthew and Eva on the sidewalk. Suddenly, the Robinsons' dog ran away, 1

Deputy Marshal Payton later searched the area but could not find the object. 1

The present appeal involves only the claim against Trooper Condley and does not

involve the question of whether reasonable suspicion or probable cause justified the

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 14-1962 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Entry ID: 4289497 
and Matthew chased it. After Matthew returned with the dog, DeputyMarshal Payton

placed Eva, Matthew, and their dog inside his patrol car.

While the Robinsons were inside the patrol car, Kristopher Stevens, a Deputy

Sheriff for Pope County, and Stewart Condley, an Arkansas State Trooper, arrived at

the scene. After Trooper Condley, Deputy Sheriff Stevens, and Deputy Marshal

Payton met briefly to discuss the situation, they walked towards the patrol car. 

Deputy Sheriff Stevens asked Matthew to exit the patrol car. Matthew did not exit,

and Deputy Sheriff Stevens tased Matthew while Matthew was in the backseat. 

The parties disagree about what occurred before Deputy Sheriff Stevens tased

Matthew. According to the Robinsons, Matthew was tased while he was struggling

to get out of the backseat. Matthew is at least six feet tall and wears a size sixteen

shoe. Eva asserts Deputy Sheriff Stevens tased Matthew without warning very

shortly after asking Matthew to get out of the car. Matthew asserts that one of the

officer's arms was inside the car as he was attempting to get out, and he reached for

the arm for assistance to exit the vehicle. Trooper Condley asserts Matthew refused

to exit the vehicle after multiple requests. Trooper Condley also alleges that Deputy

Sheriff Stevens told Matthew that if Matthew did not get out of the car, Deputy

Sheriff Stevens was going to tase Matthew. Because we are required to view the facts

in the light most favorable to Matthew, we accept his version of the events at this

stage. 

While Deputy Sheriff Stevens was tasing Matthew, Eva tried to shield

Matthew. In response, Trooper Condley walked around the back of the patrol car,

removed Eva from the vehicle, and handcuffed her. 

initial stop. 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 14-1962 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Entry ID: 4289497 
Deputy Marshal Payton then pulled Matthew from the car—on the opposite

side of the car from Trooper Condley and Eva—and drive-stunned him at least twice

while Matthew was standing. At some point, Deputy Marshal Payton took Matthew

to the ground behind the patrol car and drive-stunned Matthew at least twice more. 

Photos of Matthew from after the altercation show at least fifteen taser marks. 

DeputyMarshal Payton and DeputySheriff Stevens placed Matthew in handcuffs and

searched him. The officers found cigarette lighters and an air chuck. 

Meanwhile, Trooper Condley was attempting to control Eva on the other side

of the car. During this time, Trooper Condley placed Eva in handcuffs on the

sidewalk next to the patrol car. Eva thought the officers were shooting her son with

a handgun—she was not familiar with tasers. She urinated on herself and screamed

for her husband. She wanted to cover Matthew to protect him. Eva later stated that

she was willing to give her life to protect her son. Trooper Condley was holding her

down so she could not go to Matthew. At one point, she broke free from the

handcuffs and moved towards the other officers and Matthew. Trooper Condley

grabbed her and slammed her onto the hood of the patrol car. Eva broke the patrol

car's antenna with her hand in an attempt to stabilize herself. Trooper Condley is

6N3O tall and weighs at least 200 pounds. He described Eva as "not very big" and

"someone that [he] can handle pretty easily." Eva and Matthew were then placed

back into the police car. 

2

Although three patrol cars were present, only one dash-cam video was

produced. The video does not have audio, and a different patrol car blocks the

camera for a large portion of the video. A taser stores data regarding the duration and

We note this appeal does not involve any issues of alleged excessive force by 2

Trooper Condley against Eva Robinson; rather, this appeal involves only Trooper

Condley's duty to stop the alleged excessive force by others against Matthew

Robinson. 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 14-1962 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Entry ID: 4289497 
the number of times it was used. Pope County sent the taser to the manufacturer 3

sometime after the altercation. The manufacturer lost or destroyed the data. 

Eva was charged with disorderly conduct, refusal to submit to arrest, and

criminal mischief. Matthew was charged with refusal to submit to arrest. The Pope

County Sheriff, Aaron Duvall, investigated Deputy Sheriff Stevens's actions and

decided not to take any disciplinary action. The Marshal for the City of Dover (Rod

Pfeifer) investigated Deputy Marshal Payton's actions and decided not to take any

disciplinary action. 

The Robinsons sued the City of Dover, the Dover Marshal's Office, Pope

County, and the Pope County Sheriff's Department. They also sued individually and

officially Deputy Marshal Payton, Deputy Sheriff Stevens, Trooper Condley, Sheriff

Duvall, and Marshal Pfeifer. The Robinsons alleged violations of their federal and

state constitutional rights. They also alleged that the officers violated provisions of

the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. They sought damagesfor common law outrage, abuse

of process, battery, and failure to supervise. 

Defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted some

claims and denied others. Relevant to this appeal, the district court denied Trooper

Condley's motion for qualified immunity on the claim that Trooper Condley failed to

intervene during the other officers' use of excessive force against Matthew. The

district court held "[t]hough it is undisputed that Condley did not use any force on

Matthew, a reasonable juror could find that Condley failed to stop Deputy Sheriff

Stevens from continuing to tase Matthew, although he had a duty to do so." Trooper

Condley appeals. 

In Deputy Sheriff Stevens'sIncident Report, he stated that Matthew wastased

3

only three times. Deputy Sheriff Stevens later admitted that he tased Matthew at least

six times. 

- 5 -

Appellate Case: 14-1962 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Entry ID: 4289497 
II

We review the denial of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable

inferences in his or her favor. Schoelch v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d 1041, 1045 (8th Cir.

2010). The movant is entitled to summary judgment if the record presents no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and he or she succeeds as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56. Because this is an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity,

appellate review is limited to the legal question of whether Condley is entitled to

qualified immunity. This Court has jurisdiction to review issues of law. Craighead

v. Lee, 399 F.3d 954, 960 (8th Cir. 2005).

An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, establishes a violation of a federal

constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time

of the violation. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 227 (2009). We are

"permitted to exercise [our] sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of

the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light ofthe circumstances

in the particular case at hand." Id. at 236. 

 

In assessing whether a right is clearly established, the Supreme Court has

emphasized that we must define the right "in light of the specific context of the case,

not as a broad general proposition." Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). 

"[T]he salient question . . . is whether the state of the law at the time of an incident

provided fair warning to the defendants that their alleged [conduct] was

unconstitutional." Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014) (alterations in

original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As such, qualified immunity

"provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly

violate the law." Winter v. Adams, 254 F.3d 758, 766 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation

omitted); see also Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703, 712 (8th Cir. 2004) ("Officials are not

- 6 -

Appellate Case: 14-1962 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Entry ID: 4289497 
liable for bad guesses in gray areas; they are liable for transgressing bright lines."). 

Therefore, "existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional

question confronted by the official beyond debate." Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct.

2012, 2023 (2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

The Eighth Circuit has held that a police officer may be liable if he does not

intervene to prevent the use of excessive force when "(1) the officer observed or had

reason to know that excessive force would be or was being used, and (2) the officer

had both the opportunity and the means to prevent the harm from occurring." Nance

v. Sammis, 586 F.3d 604, 612 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 

Matthew argues Trooper Condley is not entitled to qualified immunity because

case law clearly established at the time of the incident that an officer may be liable

for failing to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force. Trooper Condley argues

that he is entitled to qualified immunity for three reasons: first, he did not observe or

have reason to know the two other officers were applying excessive force to Matthew;

second, he did not have a duty to intervene because he did not have the opportunity

and means to do so; and third, the duty to intervene in the specific circumstances of

this case—i.e., when occupied with another person on the scene—was not clearly

established.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Matthew and drawing all

reasonable inferencesin his favor, we cannot sayTrooper Condley's duty to intervene

was clearly established in the specific context of this case. Because Trooper

Condley's conduct was arguably reasonable in light of the circumstances, he is

entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Eva was under the impression that

the officers shot Matthew because she thought the taser was a handgun. She was

hysterical and unpredictable while Trooper Condley removed her from the car and

attempted to control her. She stated she was willing to give her life to protect

Matthew. In addition to urinating on herself, she was screaming for her husband and

- 7 -

Appellate Case: 14-1962 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Entry ID: 4289497 
attempting to join the altercation between Matthew and the other officers. Eva could

see the other officers "smushing" Matthew's face into the gravel. Eva wasscreaming

continuously as Trooper Condley was holding her down and not allowing her to get

up. Eva stated that she tried to stand up, and "if I could have stood up and been free,

I would have gone to Matthew." 

At one point, Eva broke free from the handcuffs and moved towards the other

officers and Matthew. Trooper Condley grabbed her and stopped her from joining

the altercation. Trooper Condley slammed Eva onto the front of the squad car and

placed her in handcuffs for the second time. At this point, Eva thought the officers

were going to kill her in addition to Matthew. After Trooper Condley restrained her

for the second time, he placed her into the back seat of Deputy Marshal Payton's

squad car. 

The Supreme Court does not permit courts to define clearly established law at

high levels of generality; the analysis must take into account the specific facts of each

case. Plumhoff, 134 S. Ct. at 2023. The "crucial question is whether the official

acted reasonably in the particular circumstances that he or she faced." Id. We find

that a reasonable official, standing in Trooper Condley's shoes, would not understand

that what he is doing—restraining a hysterical individual on the scene and deciding

not to leave the hysterical individual and intervene—violates clearly established law. 

Trooper Condley neither was plainly incompetent nor did he knowingly violate the

law. His decision to stay with Eva and not to intervene did not transgress a bright

line. If he left Eva, she could have and likely would have joined the altercation,

possibly harming herself or others. 

4

The dissent indicatesthat questions remain about whether the repeated tasing 4

which caused Matthew's injuries were justified. We agree. Our opinion does not

address, and certainly does not decide, whether Matthew'srights were violated by the

repeated tasings. Rather, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the

plaintiffs, and in particular crediting the plaintiffs' own statements, we conclude that

- 8 -

Appellate Case: 14-1962 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Entry ID: 4289497 
Matthew's reliance on Nance v. Simmons and Krout v. Goemmer is

unpersuasive. In both cases, officersfailed to intervene. In those cases, however, the

officers were not occupied with another individual on the scene—let alone one who

was hysterical. See Nance, 586 F.3d at 611–12; Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557,

566 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting a witnessstated several officers were standing around and

watching other officers apply excessive force). Here, Trooper Condley was engaged

with a volatile individual. Neither Nance nor Krout put Trooper Condley on notice

that his actions violated clearly established law. 

III

Because we do not find it would be clear to a reasonable officer, standing in

the shoes of Trooper Condley, that his conduct was unlawful in the present case,

Trooper Condley is entitled to qualified immunity. The district court's denial of

qualified immunity is reversed.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. Chief Judge Brian Miller's denial of qualified immunity

to Corporal Condley should be affirmed because disputed issues of material fact

remain. These include whether Condley breached a duty to intervene while other

officers subjected Matthew Robinson to repeated and injurious taser shocks. The

record reveals that Matthew was tased 22 times and contains photographs of his

injuries which included wounds and scars on his face, chest, abdomen, and back, as

well as a pilonidal cyst on his anus. No drugs were ever found. 

a third-party officer did not violate clearly established constitutional principles by

restraining the victim's mother, who by her own admission was hysterical, and 

preventing a possible further escalation of a volatile situation.

- 9 -

Appellate Case: 14-1962 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Entry ID: 4289497 
Questions remain about whether the repeated tasings which caused Matthew's

injuries were justified. He was first tased while detained in the backseat of a patrol

car, with little potential to break away. Cf. Lawyer v. City of Council Bluffs, 361

F.3d 1099, 1105 (8th Cir. 2004). Whether Matthew's failure or inability to exit the

car immediately on Stevens' order should have been interpreted as a "threat to his

personalsafety or whether it constituted nothing more than an affront to his command

authority is a matter for a jury to decide." Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d

491, 497 (8th Cir. 2009). Moreover, Matthew's size may have prevented him from

easily climbing out. 

Metal probes fired by a taser can penetrate up to half an inch into the skin of

a subject and deliver a 50,000 volt shock lasting up to five seconds. McKenney v.

Harrison, 635 F.3d 354, 362 (8th Cir. 2011) (Murphy, J., concurring). Tasersintrude

upon a subject's "physical integrity in a way that other non-lethal uses of force do

not," Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 825 (9th Cir. 2010), and they must be used

prudently and in justifiable circumstances, see McKenney, 635 F.3d at 364 (Murphy,

J., concurring). Recent examples continue to show that imprudent use of tasers by

law enforcement may cause permanent injury and even death. See Alan Blinder, Use

of Tasers Is Scrutinized After Walter Scott Shooting, N.Y. Times, May 31, 2015, at

A1; see also Bachtel v. TASER Intern., Inc., 747 F.3d 965, 969 n.2 (8th Cir. 2014). 

Corporal Condley's claim that he never heard anyone threaten to tase Matthew

or saw anyone use a taser on him contradicts his own previous testimony. In a report

prepared right after the incident, Condley stated that Stevens had "advised [Matthew]

that he was going to tase him if he didn't exit the [car]." Later, at the mother's

disorderly conduct trial in state court, Condley testified that he heard Stevens threaten

to tase Matthew "two times," then saw Stevens "rase his taser," aim its "red dot" at

Matthew, and "pull the trigger." The video made at the scene of the police stop

shows Condley watching officer Stevens use the taser on Matthew from his side of

the vehicle before moving over to restrain the mother who was trying to shield her

- 10 -

Appellate Case: 14-1962 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Entry ID: 4289497 
son. Although he now claims that the mother prevented him from intervening while

Matthew was tased, Condley testified at the mother's state court trial that she

"complied" with his instructions and "sat on the sidewalk." 

Trooper Condley was present when Stevens first threatened to tase Matthew,

then aimed the taser, and pulled its trigger. Condley did not say or do anything to

deescalate the situation. He simply stood by and watched the deputies repeatedly

tase the young man. See Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557, 566 (8th Cir. 2009). Nor

did he intervene after Matthew's mother was returned to the patrol car. There is no

question that the law is "clearly established that an officer who fails to intervene to

prevent the unconstitutional use of excessive force by another officer may be held

liable for violating the Fourth Amendment." E.g., Nance v. Sammis, 586 F.3d 604,

612 (8th Cir. 2009). Also well established is that "one who is given the badge of

authority of a police officer may not ignore the duty imposed by his office and fail to

stop other officers who summarily punish a third person in his presence or otherwise

within his knowledge." E.g., Krout, 583 F.3d at 565. 

Important issues of disputed fact remain on this record as to whether Corporal

Condley failed a clearly established duty by not intervening while officers Stevens

and Payton fired multiple taser shocks into Matthew's body. The experienced trial

judge's denial of qualified immunity should be affirmed.

______________________________

- 11 -

Appellate Case: 14-1962 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Entry ID: 4289497