Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02869/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02869-0/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. 14-2869

___________________________

Duke Grider; Kami Lee Grider

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

B. Bowling

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

J. Dougherty; Off. E. Reece; Paul William; City of Springfield, Missouri

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

 Submitted: April 14, 2015

 Filed: May 11, 2015

____________

Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

Duke Grider ("Grider") and Kami Lee Grider filed this action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and Missouri state law claiming officers of the Springfield Police

Appellate Case: 14-2869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2015 Entry ID: 4273715 
Department violated Grider's statutory and constitutional rights, in part by using

excessive force. The parties filed motions for summary judgment. As relevant to this

appeal, the district court found Officer Brandon Bowling was not entitled to qualified

immunity on the excessive force claim. Officer Bowling appeals. We reverse.

I

Pursuant to the proper standard of review, described below, the following are

the facts as most favorable to the Griders. Grider, his wife Kami Grider, and his son

were at a Taco Bell when an argument occurred between Grider and another patron. 

The police were called, and the Griders crossed the street to eat their food in their

vehicle. Officer Bowling was the first officer to arrive. Officer Bowling approached

Grider, who was wearing a knife on his hip, and asked Grider to exit his vehicle;

Grider declined. Officer Bowling forcibly removed Grider, placed Grider on the

ground with his knee on Grider's back, and handcuffed Grider.

While Grider was held on the ground by Officer Bowling, Officer Eric Reece

arrived in his vehicle. Officer Reece ran toward Officer Bowling and Grider and

kicked Grider in the head. Officers Bowling and Reece did not communicate before

the kick and Officer Bowling did not act to prevent the kick. Grider suffered

contusions and abrasions on his face, and the kick caused neck pain and restriction of

movement which persisted at least two years. Kami Grider suffered emotional distress

and problems with her pregnancy. Officer James Dougherty arrived at the scene

sometime after Grider was handcuffed and the kick had occurred. Grider had an open

fifth of whiskey in his vehicle which the officers poured out at the scene.

The Griders filed the present civil rights suit alleging various violations of their

constitutional rights and of state law, including excessive force, unlawful arrest, and

unlawful seizure. The suit named as defendants the City of Springfield, Police Chief

Paul Williams, and the three officers present at the scene: Bowling, Reece, and

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2015 Entry ID: 4273715 
Dougherty. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled

to qualified immunity. The Griders filed a cross-motion for partial summary

judgment. The district court denied the Griders' motion for partial summary

judgment, and granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary

judgment. The district court's order left remaining (1) the Griders' Fourth Amendment

claim for excessive force against Officers Bowling and Reece; and (2) the Griders'

state-law assault claim against Officers Bowling and Reece. Officer Bowling now

appeals, arguing he is entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.1

II

This matter comes before the Eighth Circuit on an interlocutory appeal, and

falls under the collateral order doctrine. Mettler v. Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197, 1202

(8th Cir. 1999); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525, 530 (1985). A denial of 

summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to

the "extent that it turns on an issue of law." Brown v. Fortner, 518 F.3d 552, 557 (8th

Cir. 2008). When the question presented on appeal is whether, as a matter of law, no

1

The sole question presented in this interlocutory appeal is whether the district

court erred in denying qualified immunity to Officer Bowling on the Griders'

excessive force claim. "The interlocutory appeal for denial of qualified immunity is

a vehicle with limited capacity and cannot accommodate other interlocutory appellate

arguments unless they are 'inextricably intertwined' with the defense of qualified

immunity." White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806, 815 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Eagle v.

Morgan, 88 F.3d 620, 628 (8th Cir. 1996)). Although the Griders did not file a crossappeal or ask this Court to exercise pendant jurisdiction over their claims, the Griders

expend substantial effort arguing a violation of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and

an unlawful seizure of the whiskey. Even if those questions had been properly

presented, we could not exercise jurisdiction because they are not "inextricably

intertwined with the question of qualified immunity" as each "requires entirely

different analysis" than the analysis required to determine whether Officer Bowling

is entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. White, 519 F.3d at 815. 

The Griders may appeal those issues if and when there is a final and appealable order.

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-2869 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2015 Entry ID: 4273715 
constitutional violation occurred, a legal question exists which this Court can

consider. Crow v. Montgomery, 403 F.3d 598, 601 (8th Cir. 2005); id. at 604 (Smith,

J., dissenting) ("If the facts required to determine whether the [defendants] are entitled

to qualified immunity are not genuinely in dispute, we have jurisdiction and may

resolve the question as a matter of law."). We believe the facts required to determine

whether Officer Bowling is entitled to qualified immunity are not genuinely in

dispute. We therefore have jurisdiction.

The Court reviews a district court's qualified immunity determination on

summary judgment de novo. Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703, 711 (8th Cir. 2004). 

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In determining whether there is any genuine factual

dispute, the court must look at the record and any inferences drawn therefrom in the

light most favorable to the Griders, the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

Officer Bowling is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated Grider's

"clearly established statutory or constitutional rights." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.

800, 818 (1982). Grider puts forward several theories of liability: (1) Officer

Bowling used excessive force removing Grider from the vehicle and placing him on

the ground; (2) Officer Bowling is liable for the kick of Officer Reece; and (3) Officer

Bowling is liable for nonfeasance because of his failure to prevent the kick. None of

these theories is successful.

Grider alleges Officer Bowling used excessive force in violation of the Fourth

Amendment incident to arrest. "Police officers undoubtedly have a right to use some

degree of physical force, or threat thereof, to effect a lawful seizure, and reasonable

applications of force may well cause pain or minor injuries with some frequency." 

Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898, 907 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-2869 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/11/2015 Entry ID: 4273715 
The dispositive question is whether the officer's conduct was objectively reasonable

under the circumstances, as judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the

scene at the time the force was applied. Id. The degree of injury suffered in an

excessive-force case "is certainly relevant insofar as it tends to show the amount and

type of force used." Id. at 906; see also Johnson v. Carroll, 658 F.3d 819, 830 (8th

Cir. 2011) (finding force not excessive in part because the plaintiff "sustained no

injury"). In this case, Grider alleges no injuries occurred from Officer Bowling's

actions and Grider's account of the incident does not demonstrate Officer Bowling's

use of force was excessive, particularly in light of Grider's refusal to exit his vehicle

voluntarily and his possession of a knife. We determine as a matter of law Officer

Bowling did not use excessive force removing Grider from his vehicle and placing

him on the ground, without injury, in these circumstances.

Grider does allege injuries from Officer Reece kicking him in the face. 

However, "[l]iability for damages for a federal constitutional tort is personal, so each

defendant's conduct must be independently assessed. Section 1983 does not sanction

tort by association." Smith v. City of Minneapolis, 754 F.3d 541, 547 (8th Cir. 2014)

(internal quotation marks omitted). "'An officer may be held liable only for his or her

own use of excessive force.'" Id. at 547-48 (quoting Smith v. Kan. City, Mo. Police

Dep't, 586 F.3d 576, 581 (8th Cir. 2009)). Because Officer Bowling was "not

involved in the allegedly unconstitutional acts" of Officer Reece, Officer Bowling

could not have violated Grider's constitutional rights based on Officer Reece's use of

excessive force. Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 595 F.3d 798, 805 (8th

Cir. 2010).

Grider argues Officer Bowling is liable based on his duty to protect Grider from

Officer Reece because Officer Bowling had a reasonable opportunity to intervene. It

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." Nance v. Sammis, 586 F.3d 604, 612 (8th Cir.

-5-

Appellate Case: 14-2869 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/11/2015 Entry ID: 4273715 
2009). An officer can be liable for nonfeasance, "where the officer is aware of the

abuse and the duration of the episode is sufficient to permit an inference of tacit

collaboration." Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557, 565 (8th Cir. 2009); see also

Jennings v. Davis, 476 F.2d 1271, 1275 (8th Cir. 1973) (requiring an officer to "have

had the duty, opportunity, or the ability to intervene"). Grider does not put forward

any evidence showing Officer Bowling was aware of the kick before it occurred or

had the opportunity "to take action to deescalate the situation." Nance, 586 F.3d at

612. We find relevant Grider's testimony that Officer Reece said nothing before he

kicked Grider. We also find relevant Grider's testimony that there was only one kick. 

We determine as a matter of law Officer Bowling cannot be liable for nonfeasance

under the circumstances of this case.

III

The judgment of the district court is reversed and Officer Bowling is entitled

to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

______________________________

-6-

Appellate Case: 14-2869 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/11/2015 Entry ID: 4273715