Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_18-cv-00484/USCOURTS-ared-4_18-cv-00484-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stacey Montgomery
Plaintiff
Kerry Newburn
Defendant
Travis Riggs
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION

STACEY MONTGOMERY PLAINTIFF

ADC #164027

V. No. 4:18CV00484-JTR

KERRY NEWBURN, Deputy;

and TRAVIS RIGGS, Officer,

Pulaski County Jail DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER1

Plaintiff Stacey Montgomery (“Montgomery”) alleges § 1983 claims against: 

(1) Defendant Pulaski County Deputy Kerry Newburn (“Newburn”) for using 

excessive force; and (2) Defendant Pulaski County Deputy Travis Riggs (“Riggs”) 

for failing to protect him from that use of excessive force by Newburn. Both of those 

claims arise from an incident that took place on February 5, 2018, in the prisoner 

holding cells in the Pulaski County courthouse. Doc. 1. 

Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, a Brief in Support, a 

Statement of Facts, and two Replies. Docs. 38, 39, 40, 51 & 56. They argue that: 

(1) qualified immunity shields them from liability for damages on the § 1983 claims 

Montgomery has asserted against them in their individual capacity; and (2) 

1

The parties have consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Doc. 25.

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 17
2

Montgomery’s claims against them, in their official capacity, fail because his alleged 

injuries did not result from their violation of any policy or custom.

In support of their Motion, Defendants have submitted: (1) an Affidavit of 

Lesa Warner, Administrative Sergeant at the Pulaski County Regional Detention 

Facility (“PCRDF”) (Doc. 40, Ex. 1); (2) Montgomery’s Plea Statement and PCRDF 

Book-In Sheet (Id., Exs. 1-1 & 1-2); (3) relevant Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office

policies (Id., Exs. 1-3 & 1-4); (4) Incident Reports regarding the February 5, 2018 

incident, written by Newburn and Deputy Jernizia Gibbs (Id., Exs. 1-5 & 1-6); (5) a

February 6, 2018 Incident Report prepared by Sergeant George Clarke (Id., Ex. 1-

9); (6) Montgomery’s relevant medical records (Id., Exs. 1-7 & 1-10); (7)

Montgomery’s Grievance No. 18-161 (Id., Ex. 1-8); (8) an Official Memorandum, 

dated February 23, 2018, prepared by Lieutenant Jason Bangs (Id., Ex. 1-11); (9)

two photographs of Montgomery taken on February 6, 2018; and (10) two videos 

from Camera 4 that capture the entire incident giving rise to Montgomery’s claims 

against Defendants.2

Montgomery has filed several Responses opposing summary judgment. Docs.

2

Defendants initially submitted only one video from “Camera 4,” which showed only part 

of the incident between Montgomery and Newburn. Doc. 16 (sealed). They later submitted a 

second video with additional footage from Camera 4. Doc. 41 (sealed). The parties agree that these

two videos show the entire incident that occurred in the courthouse holding area on February 5, 

2018. See Doc. 42 at 1-2. The relevant portions of the video footage from Camera 4 are for the 

intervals of time between 12:15 p.m. and 1:15 p.m. (“Video 1”) and 1:10 p.m. to 2:05 p.m. (“Video 

2”). 

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 17
3

47, 52, 53 & 57. In addition to relying on other materials in the record, Montgomery 

has also submitted: (1) his sworn Declaration, dated August 22, 2019 (Doc. 52 at 4-

6); (2) a computer-generated report of the February 5, 2018 incident (Doc. 52, Ex. 

2); and (3) additional medical records (Id., Ex. 3). He has also filed a Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel to represent him in this case. Doc. 58.

Thus, the issues are joined and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

is ready for disposition. 3

I. Facts

The facts relevant to Montgomery’s claims are set forth below.

1. On August 3, 2017, Montgomery pleaded guilty to two counts of 

aggravated assault on a correctional or law enforcement officer. Doc. 40, Ex. 1 ¶ 5

(Warner Aff.), & Ex. 1-1 (Plea Statement); State v. Montgomery, Pul. Co. Cir. Ct. 

No. CR 2016-3237 (electronically accessed at https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov). At that 

time, he was already incarcerated in the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”), 

serving multiple sentences in other cases. See https://adc.arkansas.gov (Inmate 

3

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in a light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party, demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. 

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50

(1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine 

dispute of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Thereafter, the nonmoving party must present 

specific facts demonstrating that there is a material dispute for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); 

Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011).

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 3 of 17
4

Search). 

2. On February 4, 2018, Montgomery was transported from the ADC to 

the PCRDF to await his sentencing, which was scheduled for the next day. Doc. 40,

Ex. 1-2 (PCRDF Book-In Sheet); see State v. Montgomery, supra.

3. On February 5, 2018, Montgomery was transported from the PCRDF 

to the Pulaski County courthouse. After his sentencing, he was placed in the “holding 

area” or “lock-up,” awaiting transport back to the PCRDF. Doc. 52 at 4

(Montgomery Decl.). Newburn and Riggs were working as “transport deputies” for 

the PCRDF. Their duties included transporting PCRDF inmates to and from court 

proceedings, as well as supervising inmates in the holding area. Doc. 40, Ex. 1 ¶ 10;

Doc. 26-4 at 6 & 10 (Defs.’ Resp. to Interrogs.). 

4. At about 1:00 p.m. on February 5, Newburn was “downsizing” the cells 

in the holding area to make room for other prisoners. Doc. 40, Ex. 1-5 (Newburn 

Incident Report). Newburn removed Montgomery and three other prisoners from 

one cell to move them down the hall to the “ADC holding cell.” Montgomery was 

already in handcuffs and leg irons and, once he was in the hallway, Newburn placed 

a belly chain and a “black box” on him.4 Id.; Doc. 26-4 at 7; Doc. 52 at 4; Video 1 

4

According to Montgomery, the black box covered the keyhole portion of the handcuffs 

and was connected to the belly chain. There was a chain connecting the leg irons and handcuffs, 

which was also connected to the belly chain. He refers to this as being in “four-point restraints.” 

Doc. 53 at 8.

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 4 of 17
5

at 01:07:11 to 01:08:12. 

5. As Newburn was moving the prisoners, Montgomery began yelling at 

a female prisoner in the hallway. Newburn ordered him to “cease the noise” and 

keep walking toward the ADC holding cell. Doc. 40, Ex. 1-5. Montgomery admits 

that he was yelling and that Newburn told him to be quiet. Doc. 53 at 1.

6. According to Newburn’s Incident Report, Montgomery then cursed 

him and called him a racial epithet. Newburn continued using a “soft open hand” to 

guide Montgomery to the holding cell. Newburn reported that Montgomery then 

threatened several times to “fuck [Newburn] up” if he took Montgomery’s cuffs off 

or if Newburn “ever came to Varner Unit.” Doc. 40, Ex. 1-5. 

7. According to Incident Reports from Newburn and Deputy Jernizia 

Gibbs (“Gibbs”), as Newburn tried to guide Montgomery into the cell, Montgomery 

“snatched away” from him. Doc. 40, Exs. 1-5 & 1-6.5 Newburn stated that he then 

pushed Montgomery’s back up against the wall to gain control of him. Gibbs ran 

over to assist. Newburn handed his keys to her, and she told him to step back “to 

defuse the situation.” Gibbs then walked Montgomery into the cell and secured the 

5

Newburn’s computer-generated incident report stated that Montgomery “snatched 

towards” him. Doc. 52 at 8. This discrepancy is not material.

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 5 of 17
6

cell door without further incident. Id. 6

8. In his sworn Declaration, Montgomery admits that he cursed Newburn, 

but asserts that he did not physically resist Newburn’s efforts to lead him into the 

cell. Doc. 52 at 4. He asserts that, after he cursed Newburn, he grabbed and painfully 

squeezed Montgomery’s arm and neck, spun him around so they were face to face,

and slammed him back against the wall. According to Montgomery, Newburn then 

banged his head against the wall for “over one minute,”7 choked his neck, and yelled 

“Who’s the bitch ass nigga now?”8 He asserts that when Gibbs arrived, she told 

Newburn several times to “calm down,” to let go of Montgomery’s neck, and to step 

back. Newburn then released Montgomery and Gibbs escorted him into the cell. Id. 

at 4-5; see also Doc. 1 at 5 (Pl.’s Complt.).

6

In her Incident Report, Gibbs stated that she heard Montgomery cursing Newburn, ran 

over to assist, was handed the keys by Newburn, walked Montgomery in the cell, and secured the 

cell cage door. Doc. 40, Ex. 1-6. Her report also states that Newburn “pushed [Montgomery] 

against the back wall to gain positive control” after Montgomery tried to “pull away” from him.

Id. 

7

In a grievance Montgomery filed a few hours after the incident, he stated that Newburn 

had “choked” him and “bang[ed] [his] head against the wall repeatedly for at least 30-40 seconds.” 

Doc. 40, Ex. 1-8 (emphasis added). In Montgomery’s verified § 1983 Complaint, filed on July 6, 

2018, he said Newburn “wrapped his right hand around [Montgomery’s] neck and shoved [him] 3

feet into the wall and began to brutally bang [his] head into the wall ... [for] over 1 minute.” Doc. 

1 at 5 (emphasis added). In his sworn Declaration dated August 22, 2019, Montgomery said

Newburn “bang[ed] his head on the wall several times and chok[ed] him about the neck,” but does 

not say how long the incident lasted. Doc. 52 at 4. Montgomery’s changing accounts of what 

happened during the incident and how long he was subjected to Newburn’s alleged use of 

excessive force seriously undermine the credibility of his claims. 

8

Both Newburn and Montgomery are African Americans. 

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 6 of 17
7

9. Camera 4 shows only Riggs in close proximity to Newburn during the 

time Montgomery alleges Newburn choked him and repeatedly banged his head 

against the wall. Video 1 at 01:09:00 to 01:10:17.

10. Riggs admitted that he was present and witnessed the incident between 

Newburn and Montgomery, but said he was “not personally involved” and did not 

prepare an incident report. Doc. 26-4 at 11 (Riggs’s Resp. to Interrog. Nos. 4-6); 

Doc. 37 at 30 (Riggs’s Resp. to Req. Admiss. Nos. 1-2). 

11. The video of the incident shows, at 1:07 p.m., Newburn and Riggs 

placing chains on four prisoners and walking them toward the ADC holding cell at 

the end of the hallway. Video 1 at 01:07:11 to 01:09:43. The video makes it clear 

that Newburn is a very large and powerfully built man, who is bigger than 

Montgomery. 

12. At 1:09 p.m., all of the prisoners, except Montgomery, have either 

walked inside the ADC holding cell or are walking through the cell doorway. As the 

last prisoner in the line, Montgomery is still several feet away from the holding cell. 

Newburn is standing with his back to the camera waiting for Montgomery to enter 

the cell. The video shows Montgomery jerk to the right instead of turning left to 

enter the cell. Newburn follows Montgomery and pins him against the back wall. 

For the next nine or ten seconds, Newburn can be seen trying to control 

Montgomery, whose back appears to be against the wall on the right side of the 

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 7 of 17
8

hallway. Video 1 at 01:09:43 to 01:09:59.

13. At 1:10 p.m., Montgomery appears to be still pinned against the back 

wall. Newburn and Riggs are in front of him, with their backs to the camera. An 

open cell door makes it difficult to see everything that is taking place between 

Newburn and Montgomery. They appear to be shoving each other as Montgomery 

tries to push himself off the wall and Newburn pushes back to maintain his position 

of control until other officers arrive. One thing is clear, however, Newburn’s arms 

and hands never rise above his shoulders, which would have been necessary for 

Newburn to grab Montgomery around the throat or bang his head against the wall, 

as Montgomery alleges in his pleadings. 

14. After about ten seconds, Newburn moves to the left and Riggs leads 

Montgomery toward the holding cell door. Montgomery has his hands behind his 

back, but he is jerking and resisting. Gibbs and another officer approach the holding 

cell, and Montgomery turns and attempts to strike in the direction of Newburn as the 

cell door closes. Videos 1 & 2 at 01:10:00 to 01:12:45.

15. In his sworn Declaration, Montgomery states that, when Gibbs arrived,

he told her that his neck and head were hurt and that he needed medical attention. 

When he arrived back at the PCRDF, he was immediately taken to a medical 

examination room. Doc. 52 at 5. 

16. At 2:52 p.m., a nurse examined Montgomery. According to 

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 8 of 17
9

Montgomery, he showed the nurse red marks on his neck, and told him that his head 

was sore and tender. In his treatment notes, the nurse stated “no visible marks noted 

upon inspection” and “no reaction when touching supposed affected area of head.”

Id. at 5 & 29 (Nursing Progress Notes) (emphasis added). The nurse also completed 

a “Medical Communication Form,” stating that “no injury [was] complained of or 

observed,” and that Montgomery was “medically cleared to remain in unit.” Doc. 

40, Ex. 1-7 (emphasis added).

17. Nothing in Video 1 and Video 2 supports Montgomery’s claim that 

Newburn choked him and violently banged his head against the wall, much less that 

he did so for “30-40 seconds” or “over one minute.” Given Newburn’s size and 

strength, him violently banging Montgomery’s head against the wall one or more 

times would have likely rendered Montgomery unconscious and would have left 

considerable swelling and a contusion on the back of Montgomery’s head. Similarly, 

Newburn wrapping his hand around Montgomery’s throat and neck and choking him 

would have left easily discernable finger marks and bruising. In other words, there 

would have been nothing subtle about the injuries Montgomery would have 

sustained from such a use of force by Newburn. 

18. The notes of the nurse who examined Montgomery, immediately after 

the incident, do not document any marks or injuries to Montgomery’s neck or head. 

This undisputed medical evidence is entirely consistent with the video of the incident 

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 9 of 17
10

and makes it clear Montgomery has fabricated his claims against Newburn. 

19. Later that day, Montgomery filed a grievance, alleging that Newburn 

“choked” him and “bang[ed] [his] head against the wall repeatedly for at least 30-40 

seconds.” He complained that he was unable to turn his neck and had a “major 

headache.” He asked that photos be taken of his neck. Doc. 40, Ex. 1-8. 

20. According to Montgomery, he complained to officers throughout the 

evening that he had a headache, was dizzy, and had a sore neck and throat. Shortly 

after midnight, Montgomery told Sergeant George Clarke (“Clarke”) that his neck 

was hurting and he needed medical attention. A nurse spoke to Montgomery through 

his cell door and told him to fill out a sick call form so that he could be seen. Doc. 

52 at 5-6; Doc. 40, Ex. 1-9 (Clarke Incident Report).

21. At 4:10 a.m. on February 6, 2018, Montgomery was taken to the 

dayroom where Clarke took photos of his neck, but said he could not see any visible 

injuries. Doc. 40, Ex. 1-9; see also Doc. 36 at 12-13 (photos). At 4:29 a.m., a nurse 

examined Montgomery. She noted that he complained of neck pain and that she 

could see “small red marks” on the right back side of his neck.9 Doc. 40, Exs. 1-9 & 

9

The previous day, a nurse had examined Montgomery’s neck, less than two hours after 

the incident, and noted he saw no signs of injury to Montgomery’s neck, something the nurse 

reported to Montgomery. This suggests “the “small red marks” the nurse observed on the right 

back side of Montgomery’s neck on February 6 may have been created by Montgomery once he 

was returned to his cell. However, even if those small red marks were the result of Newburn using 

physical force to control Montgomery, they are consistent with what would be expected from two 

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 10 of 17
11

1-10 (Med. Comm. Form); Doc. 52 at 30-31 (Nursing Progress Notes). The nurse 

noted no bumps or contusions to the back of Montgomery’s head that would be 

expected if, as Montgomery alleges, Newburn had violently banged his head against 

the wall. The nurse prescribed ibuprofen for seven days; placed him on 

“musculoskeletal protocol” with instructions to avoid “strenuous work/activity” 

until his problem was resolved; told him to follow up with sick if needed; and cleared 

him to remain in the unit. Id. 

22. On February 21, 2018, Lieutenant A. Aldridge prepared an Official 

Memorandum regarding the February 5 use of force incident. Based on the incident 

reports, he found no violations of any policies or procedures, standards of conduct,

or branch directives. He recommended that the holding area video be “pulled from 

the courthouse for review if possible,” and, “[a]s long as the video does not reveal 

any discrepancies from the submitted reports,” no further investigation would be 

recommended. Doc. 36 at 16. 

23. On February 23, 2018, Lieutenant Jason Bangs reviewed the videos of 

the incident and prepared an Official Memorandum in which he reached the 

following conclusion: 

I have reviewed all written documents and video regarding the 

incident with Inmate Montgomery. I concur with Lieutenant Aldridge’s 

men pushing and shoving each other. Nothing about those small red marks is consistent with 

Newburn choking Montgomery. 

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 11 of 17
12

assessment that there were no apparent violations of Standards of 

Conduct, Policy and Procedures or Branch Directives and that no 

further action is required concerning this incident. 

I reviewed this incident on video and it was not in plain view due 

to being in a corner of lock up. I saw nothing wrong in the video. 

Doc. 40, Ex. 1-11.

II. Discussion

Qualified immunity gives government officials “breathing room to make 

reasonable but mistaken judgments” and “protects all but the plainly incompetent or 

those who knowingly violate the law.” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1866-67

(2017) (internal citations omitted). To determine whether an official falls into either 

of these categories, the Court must ask “whether it would have been clear to a 

reasonable officer that the alleged conduct ‘was unlawful in the situation he 

confronted.’” Id. at 1867. As long as “a reasonable officer might not have known for 

certain that the conduct was unlawful,” the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. 

Id. 

To establish that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on 

Montgomery’s individual capacity claims, Montgomery has the burden of 

demonstrating that: (1) the supported facts, viewed in the light most favorable to 

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 12 of 17
13

him, show that each Defendant violated his constitutional rights;10 and (2) those 

constitutional rights were clearly established such that a reasonable officer would 

have known that his actions were unlawful. See Ashcroft v. Al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 

735 (2011); Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009); see also Loch v. City of 

Litchfield, 689 F.3d 961, 965 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that qualified immunity 

“shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation unless his 

conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 

reasonable person would have known’”).

Montgomery argues that Newburn used excessive force when he suddenly and 

aggressively slammed Montgomery against the wall, choked him, and repeatedly 

banged his head against the wall for “over one minute.” He contends that, because 

he was fully restrained, complying with Newburn’s orders, and not posing a physical 

10Although the Court must view the facts in a light most favorable to Montgomery, it is not 

obligated to adopt his otherwise unsupported factual statements if they are “blatantly contradicted” 

by the record. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (“When opposing parties tell two 

different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury 

could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion 

for summary judgment.”); Reed v. City of St. Charles, Missouri, 561 F.3d 788, 790-91 (8th Cir. 

2009) (holding that plaintiff may not merely point to unsupported self-serving allegations, but must 

“substantiate his allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in his 

favor ... without resort to ‘speculation, conjecture, or fantasy’”).

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 13 of 17
14

threat, the amount of force used was unnecessary and not applied in a good-faith 

effort to maintain or restore discipline.11 Doc. 1 at 5-6; Doc. 52 at 2; Doc. 53 at 8. 

Defendants argue that Newburn’s use of force came only after Montgomery 

created a disturbance by yelling at a female inmate; refused multiple orders to enter 

the holding cell; and then jerked away from Newburn as he was trying to guide him 

into the cell. Thus, they argue that, in pinning Montgomery against the wall until 

other officers arrived, Newburn applied a reasonable amount of force in a good faith 

effort to maintain control over Montgomery, in a hallway crowded with other 

inmates. Doc. 39 at 4-6; Doc. 51 at 2-3; Doc. 56 at 2-3.

In evaluating a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim, the core 

judicial inquiry is whether the relevant force was applied in a good-faith effort to 

maintain discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992). In making that determination, courts 

must consider: (a) the need for application of force; (b) the relationship between that 

need and the amount of force used; (c) the threat reasonably perceived by the 

responsible officials; (d) any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful 

response; and (e) the extent of the injury inflicted. See Ward v. Smith, 844 F.3d 717, 

11Montgomery also alleges that Newburn’s actions were not in compliance with PCRDF 

policy. However, it is well settled that a defendant’s alleged violation of internal prison rules or 

procedures, standing alone, is not actionable. Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 2003); 

Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997) (“there is no § 1983 liability for violating 

prison policy”). 

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 14 of 17
15

721-722 (8th Cir. 2016); Walker v. Bowersox, 526 F.3d 1186, 1188 (8th Cir. 2008); 

Treats v. Morgan, 308 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2002).

Newburn and Montgomery’s accounts of the use of force incident are 

markedly different. However, the video shows that the incident between Newburn 

and Montgomery lasted for less than twenty seconds and appeared to involve nothing

more than pushing and shoving. While the angle and clarity of the videos make it 

difficult to discern precisely what was taking place between Newburn and 

Montgomery, there is nothing which suggests Newburn slammed Montgomery’s 

head against the wall and choked him; much less that, as Montgomery alleges, 

Newburn engaged in that conduct for “30-40 seconds” to “over one minute.”

Finally, while Montgomery subjectively complained about injuries to his 

head and neck, medical personnel, who examined Montgomery shortly after the 

incident, saw nothing consistent with any injuries to Montgomery’s head and neck. 

The next morning, an officer took photos of Montgomery’s neck and noted “no 

visible injuries.” Another nurse examined Montgomery’s neck and noted “small red

marks” on the right back side of his neck, which do not appear to have been present 

the previous day. Assuming those “small red marks” were caused by the physical 

interaction between Newburn and Montgomery (and not created by Montgomery 

himself to lend some credence to his claim after medical personnel found no marks 

on his neck immediately after the attack), they would be consistent with Newburn 

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 15 of 17
16

applying only the limited amount of force necessary to control Montgomery until 

other officers arrived. Certainly, those small red marks do not support 

Montgomery’s claim that Newburn choked him and banged his head against the 

wall.

There is nothing in the video of the incident or in the multiple examinations 

of Montgomery’s neck and head, during the fifteen hours after the incident, which 

support Montgomery’s claim that Newburn used any excessive force during the 

incident, much less the enormously excessive force Montgomery alleges, which 

would have created injuries that would have required medical treatment and possible 

hospitalization. 

Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Montgomery, no reasonable 

fact-finder could conclude that Newburn used excessive force against him or 

engaged in any other conduct that might be deemed a violation of Montgomery’s 

constitutional rights. Because qualified immunity protects Newburn from the 

excessive force claim Montgomery has asserted against him, in his individual 

capacity, Newburn is entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, Montgomery’s 

excessive force claim will be dismissed, with prejudice. 

Because Newburn did not use excessive force, no reasonable fact-finder could 

find liability on the part of Riggs for failing to intervene and protect Montgomery.

See Smith v. Kilgore, 926 F.3d 479, 486 (8th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, Riggs is also 

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 16 of 17
17

entitled to summary judgment, and Montgomery’s failure to protect claim against 

him will be dismissed, with prejudice. 

Finally, without a constitutional violation by the individual officers, there can 

be no liability on the part of Pulaski County on Montgomery’s official-capacity 

claims. Smith, 926 F.3d at 486; Brewington v. Keener, 902 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir. 

2018) (claims against county officers, in their official capacities, “must be treated as 

[claims] against the County”). 

Accordingly, Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 

claims Montgomery has asserted against them, in their official capacity, and those 

claims, as to both Defendants, will be dismissed, with prejudice. 

III. Conclusion

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 38) is GRANTED, and all 

of Montgomery’s claims are DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE. Montgomery’s 

Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 58) is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2020.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:18-cv-00484-JTR Document 59 Filed 03/25/20 Page 17 of 17