Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02765/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02765-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Russellville
Not Party
David Hyde
Appellee
Jeff Myers
Appellant
Kari E. Powers
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 05-2765/2869

___________

David Hyde, Guardian of the Person *

and Estate of Bertrand S. Hyde, *

an Incapacitated Person, *

*

Appellee/Cross-Appellant, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jeff Myers, Individually and in his *

official capacity as police officer of * [UNPUBLISHED]

the City of Russellville, Arkansas; Kari *

E. Powers, Individually and in her *

official capacity as police officer for *

the City of Russellville, Arkansas, *

*

Appellants/Cross-Appellees, *

*

City of Russellville, Arkansas, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: July 25, 2006

Filed: August 7, 2006 

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-2765 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075328
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

-2-

These interlocutory appeals arise from Bertrand S. Hyde’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983

lawsuit against the City of Russellville, Arkansas, and police officers Jeff Myers and

Kari E. Powers. Myers and Powers (appellants) appeal the district court’s1

 denial of

summary judgment based on qualified immunity on an excessive-force claim, as well

as the denial of summary judgment on an assault-and-battery claim; and in a cross

appeal, Hyde’s guardian--who was substituted as plaintiff--challenges summary

judgment rulings adverse to Hyde. 

We lack jurisdiction over all these rulings except the denial of qualified

immunity on the excessive-force claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of appeals have

jurisdiction over district courts’ final decisions); Krein v. Norris, 250 F.3d 1184, 1187

(8th Cir. 2001) (where there is indication that jurisdiction is lacking, issue will be

raised sua sponte); Kassuelke v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 223 F.3d 929, 930-31 (8th

Cir. 2000) (discussing exceptions to final-judgment rule). The denial of summary

judgment based on qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent the

appeal seeks review of the district court’s purely legal conclusions. See Vaughn v.

Greene County, Ark., 438 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2006). 

We agree with the district court that appellants were not entitled to qualified

immunity on the excessive-force claim. See Henderson v. Munn, 439 F.3d 497, 501

(8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The court correctly analyzed the claim under the

Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard rather than the substantive

due process standard. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989). We

conclude the district court properly determined, viewing the facts in the light most

favorable to Hyde, that there was a Fourth Amendment excessive-force violation, and

that the constitutional right to be free from excessive force was clearly established at

the time of the violation, such that appellants would reasonably have understood their

Appellate Case: 05-2765 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075328
-3-

actions were unlawful in the situation they confronted. See Henderson, 439 F.3d at

501-04. 

Accordingly, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction appellants’ challenge to the

denial of summary judgment on the assault-and-battery claim, and all the challenges

raised in the cross appeal. We affirm the denial of qualified immunity to appellants

on the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2765 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075328