Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02484/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02484-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Casey Darrel Hunter
Appellant
Timothy Muehler
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 23, 2016*

Decided May 26, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐2484

CASEY DARREL HUNTER,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY MUEHLER,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 4:12‐cv‐04036

Sara Darrow,

Judge.

O R D E R

Casey Hunter claimed in this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Timothy Muehler,

a police officer in Rock Island, Illinois, used excessive force in arresting him. The district

court granted summary judgment for Muehler on the ground of qualified immunity,

and Hunter appeals.

The background facts are straightforward. Hunter ran from a pickup truck that

Officer Muehler and his partner had stopped on suspicion that the occupants were

                                                 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 15-2484 Document: 49 Filed: 05/26/2016 Pages: 3
No. 15‐2484    Page 2

involved in a drug deal. Muehler gave chase, saw what he thought was a gun in

Hunter’s right hand, and ordered him three times to drop the weapon. According to

Muehler, Hunter instead fired one round over his shoulder while still running. Muehler

then shot Hunter in the buttocks and foot. He fell, and police found a .38‐caliber

revolver on the ground nearby.

Illinois authorities charged Hunter with aggravated discharge of a firearm,

attempted murder, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. A state‐court jury

acquitted him of the first two offenses but found him guilty of possessing the revolver.

Federal authorities then brought their own charge of possession of a firearm by a felon,

18 U.S.C. § 922(g), based on the same incident. A district judge convicted Hunter after a

bench trial, and his direct appeal from that conviction is currently pending. United States

v. Hunter, No. 15‐3700 (7th Cir. filed Dec. 4, 2015).

Meanwhile, during the ongoing federal prosecution, Hunter brought this suit

alleging that Officer Muehler “wrongfully shot” him, which the district court

understood to be a claim of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. At

summary judgment Muehler countered that Hunter’s use of a gun to threaten him had

made his own use of deadly force objectively reasonable. Muehler characterized this

defense as resting on the doctrine of qualified immunity, but effectively he was arguing

that his use of force had not violated Hunter’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.

See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11 (1985) (“Where the officer has probable cause to

believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or

others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly

force.”).

As evidence to support his version of events, Officer Muehler submitted

transcripts of testimony given at Hunter’s state trial, including Muehler’s own

testimony and that of another officer who, during a hospital interrogation, had elicited

Hunter’s confession to firing the revolver. In response Hunter did not dispute

Muehler’s account of the shooting; instead, he wrote that it would have been in the

officer’s “best interest to plant a gun & claim that it was shot.” He submitted no

evidence aside from an affidavit in which he asserted that being shot from behind

“clearly proves that the excessive use of force was unnecessary.” The district court, in

ruling for Muehler, concluded that a “reasonable officer facing the quickly unfolding

events” would justifiably have believed that Hunter “posed a threat to himself, other

officers and civilians in the area.”

Case: 15-2484 Document: 49 Filed: 05/26/2016 Pages: 3
No. 15‐2484    Page 3

On appeal Hunter does not challenge the district court’s conclusions or present a

legal argument; indeed, he does not even directly dispute Officer Muehler’s account of

the shooting. Instead, Hunter submitted to this court a variety of newspaper clippings,

photographs, and documents from his criminal proceedings. We construe pro se filings

liberally, Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001), but like

Officer Muehler, we cannot find in Hunter’s appellate brief any challenge to the district

court’s decision. Both his opening and reply briefs refer to evidence admitted at his

state trial and offer general assertions of his innocence, but lack any discussion of the

district court’s analysis. Even pro se litigants must comply with Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8), which requires that an appellate brief contain a cogent

argument and reasons supporting it, with citations to authority and relevant parts of the

record. Although we “are generally disposed toward providing a litigant the benefit of

appellate review,” Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545, we will not craft arguments or conduct

legal research on behalf of a litigant. Because Hunter has not presented an argument,

we are left with nothing to review.

DISMISSED.

Case: 15-2484 Document: 49 Filed: 05/26/2016 Pages: 3