Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02030/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02030-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2030

___________

Salaad Mahamed, *

*

Plaintiff/Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

Bruce M. Anderson, Sheriff Sherburne * District of Minnesota.

County; Sgt. Tom Zerwas, Sheriff *

Sherburne County, * 

*

Defendants, *

*

Sgt. Steve Pedersen, Sherburne *

County Jail, * 

* 

Defendant/Appellant. *

__________

Submitted: May 11, 2010

Filed: July 30, 2010

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

RILEY, Chief Judge.

Salaad Mahamed filed a complaint against two Sherburne County Jail officers,

Tom Zerwas and Steve Pedersen, and the Sherburne County Sheriff, Bruce M.

Anderson, alleging various civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thereafter,

Appellate Case: 09-2030 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688592
1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota. 

2

When a prisoner is ordered to lockdown, he is required to return to his cell and

the door is locked. 

-2-

the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court1

 granted the

motion as to Zerwas and Anderson, but denied the motion, in part, as to Pedersen,

preserving an excessive force claim. Pedersen appeals, asserting qualified immunity.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

I. BACKGROUND

Mahamed was incarcerated at the Sherburne County Jail for allegedly violating

his immigration status. During his time at the jail, Mahamed had a series of

disagreements and altercations with jail staff, repeatedly filed grievances voicing his

complaints, and spent a significant amount of time in segregation. One such incident

occurred on or about October 10, 2007, while Mahamed was in segregation. The facts

surrounding the incident are in dispute, but we construe the facts in the light most

favorable to Mahamed. See Davis v. Oregon County, Mo., 607 F.3d 543, 548 (8th

Cir. 2010). 

At the Sherburne County Jail, inmates in “special housing,” or “segregation,”

are only permitted to be out of their cells for one hour each day. On October 10, 2007,

Mahamed intended to spend his time out of his cell watching television. Inmates are

not allowed to change the channel on the television, so Mahamed asked a guard to

change the channel, but the guard refused. Mahamed protested, and the guard ordered

Mahamed to “lockdown.”2 Mahamed became upset and told the guard he thought he

was being treated unfairly. 

Mahamed returned to his cell, where he felt “angry,” “frustrated,” and

“powerless,” and he began kicking the door to his cell. Mahamed began to argue with

Appellate Case: 09-2030 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688592
-3-

jail staff (one male and four female guards). The guards called Pedersen into the unit.

Pedersen ordered Mahamed to lie on the ground, and Mahamed responded by lying

on his back, while yelling and crying, “[W]hat did I do; what did I do; this is not fair;

I’m human; how long are you going to keep torturing me.” “Out of sheer frustration,”

Mahamed shouted, “[Y]ou want to shoot me, go ahead!” Pedersen ordered Mahamed

to roll over onto his stomach, but before Mahamed could fully turn over, Pedersen

tased Mahamed in his genital area. One of the probes struck Mahamed in the testicle,

and the other probe struck Mahamed in the hand. Mahamed passed out and woke up

in a wheel chair. 

In his complaint, Mahamed declared, “at [no] time was I ever a threat to

[Sergeant] Pedersen and at [no] time was there a need to tase me while laying on the

floor.” Mahamed also maintains that he has seen numerous medical providers for the

injuries he sustained while incarcerated. Specifically, Mahamed alleges he has

“trouble with incontinence and impotence as a result of being tased in [his] testicle,”

it is painful for him to urinate, he has nerve damage in two of his fingers, and he has

seen a urologist, a chiropractor, and a pain management and rehabilitation physician

and undergone “extensive psychological therapy.” 

Mahamed filed a complaint in the district court alleging, as relevant here,

Pedersen used excessive force when he discharged his taser and struck Mahamed in

the testicle and hand. The district court denied Pedersen’s motion for summary

judgment on the excessive force claim. The district court declared, “Viewing the facts

in the light most favorable to Mahamed, he was uncooperative but not dangerous or

threatening, and therefore the use of a taser violated his clearly established

constitutional right to be free from excessive force.” 

Pedersen now appeals, claiming he is entitled to qualified immunity because he

did not violate Mahamed’s constitutional rights, and even if he did, the law was not

clearly established at the time of the incident. 

Appellate Case: 09-2030 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688592
-4-

II. DISCUSSION

“Our jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified

immunity depends upon the issues that the appeal raises.” Thomas v. Talley, 251 F.3d

743, 746 (8th Cir. 2001). “We have jurisdiction over an order denying summary

judgment based on qualified immunity when the issue on appeal ‘turns on a legal

determination [of] whether certain facts show a violation of clearly established law.’”

Id. (quoting Hunter v. Namanny, 219 F.3d 825, 829 (8th Cir. 2000)). However, “[a]

defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district

court’s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the

pretrial record sets forth a ‘genuine’ issue of fact for trial.” Johnson v. Jones, 515

U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995). “Even if a defendant frames an issue in terms of qualified

immunity, we should determine whether he is simply arguing that the plaintiff offered

insufficient evidence to create a material fact.” White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806, 813

(8th Cir. 2008). 

On appeal, Pedersen frames his argument as a legal one, claiming he did not

violate Mahamed’s clearly established constitutional rights. Fundamentally, however,

Pedersen’s argument depends on our resolution of numerous factual issues in his

favor. Pedersen paints a different picture of the events which took place immediately

preceding and during the incident than those portrayed by Mahamed and accepted by

the district court. Pedersen reports a corrections officer informed him Mahamed was

“out of control” and “causing a disturbance.” When Pedersen arrived at Mahamed’s

unit, Pedersen claims he could hear Mahamed yelling obscenities. Pedersen alleges

he looked in Mahamed’s cell, and observed Mahamed throwing things. Pedersen

maintains Mahamed incited the other inmates, causing them to yell and encourage

Mahamed to be unruly. Pedersen then decided to diffuse the situation by moving

Mahamed to another unit. Pedersen claims he took out his taser because “Mahamed

was acting erratically.” Pedersen spoke to Mahamed through his cell door and asked

him to lie on the floor, but Mahamed lay on his back with his legs toward the door,

compromising the safety of the corrections officers. Pedersen claims he entered the

Appellate Case: 09-2030 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688592
-5-

cell and pointed his taser at Mahamed’s chest, but “Mahamed’s angry behavior

continued unabated.” Pedersen contends Mahamed continued to yell, and due to

“Mahamed’s level of agitation, Pedersen concluded that using a [t]aser to effectuate

control over Mahamed would be safer for all concerned than wrestling with him on

the hard concrete floor of the cell.” Pedersen asserts he aimed the taser at Mahamed’s

chest, but the probes missed and hit Mahamed in the right hand and genital area.

Thus, Pedersen maintains he did not intend to strike Mahamed in the genital area.

Pedersen also contends, “Mahamed has not submitted probative evidence to prove that

he was injured by the force used,” and “Pedersen used the [t]aser in a good faith effort

to restore order and not to maliciously and sadistically punish Mahamed.” It is based

upon these facts Pedersen claims he did not violate Mahamed’s clearly established

constitutional rights. 

Many of Pedersen’s factual assertions are in conflict with Mahamed’s statement

of the facts, which, at the summary judgment stage, we must take as true. The factual

controversies pertaining to Mahamed’s conduct, Pedersen’s response, Pedersen’s

intent, and Mahamed’s injuries, are the type of issues best left for trial. See Johnson,

515 U.S. at 316-17. The Supreme Court has held, “determinations of evidentiary

sufficiency at summary judgment are not immediately appealable merely because they

happen to arise in a qualified-immunity case.” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313

(1996) (citing Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313-18). Thus, even though Pedersen seeks to

frame the issue in terms of qualified immunity, he asks this court to find qualified

immunity on facts contrary to those Mahamed presented to the district court. We do

not have jurisdiction or the capability to decide these factual disputes. See White, 519

F.3d at 812-13 (“This court does not have jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory

summary-judgment qualified-immunity appeal if ‘at the heart of th[e] argument is a

dispute of fact.’” (quoting Pace v. City of Des Moines, 201 F.3d 1050, 1053 (8th Cir.

2000))). Because we lack jurisdiction to consider Pedersen’s qualified immunity

appeal, we do not address the qualified immunity and related constitutional issues.

Appellate Case: 09-2030 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688592
-6-

III. CONCLUSION

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and we remand the case to the

district court for further proceedings.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2030 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688592