The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge f or the Eastern 1 District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2174

___________ Pat Pannell, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Barry Miller, Individually and in * Eastern District of Arkansas. Official Capacity as Blytheville Police * Officer, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 7, 1997 Filed: November 19, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, an d MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this interlocutory appeal, Blytheville, Arkansas Police Officer Barry Mille r appeals the d istrict court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity 1 in Pat Pannell’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm.-2-

For purposes of summary judgment, Miller concedes the following facts are true. On February 16, 1996, Miller responded to a call regarding Pannell’s dogs. In arresting Pannell for disorderly conduct and harassm ent, Miller shoved Pannell inside the police car with her hands cuffed behind her back, and took her to the police station. When the two arrived at the station and Miller removed the handcuffs, Pannell struck Miller on hi s chest with her right hand. Miller then hit Pannell in the face, causing rednes s and swelling, for which Pannell was treated by a doctor.
In an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment based o n qualified immunity, this court has jurisdiction to review, de novo, the abstract issue s of law relating to the existence of qualified immunity. See Sisneros v. Nix , 95 F.3 d 749, 753 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review) ; Eagle v. Morgan , 88 F.3d 620, 624 (8th Cir. 1996). Examining the conduct that the district co urt deemed adequately supported for purposes of summary judgment, se e Allison v. Department of Corrections , 94 F.3d 494, 496 (8th Cir. 1996), this court must determine whether a reasonable official i n defe ndant’s position would have known that his conduct violated that right, se e Heidemann v. Rother , 84 F.3d 1021, 1027 -28 (8th Cir. 1996); Sellers v. Baer , 28 F.3d 895, 899 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 1084 (1995).
We conclude the district court correctly rejected Miller’s defense of qualifie d immunity because under Pannell’s version of the facts, she was arrested for a mino r offense, posed no immediate safety threat to Miller, and was already detained at th e police station. Thus, it was objectively unreasonable for Miller to hit her in the fac e w i th enough force to cause injury. See Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) (exce ssive-force claims involving arrestees analyzed under Fourth Amendmen t “o bjective reasonableness” standard, judged by reasonable officer on scene; analysi s involve s consideration of facts and circumstances, including crime at issue, whethe r suspect posed immediate safety threat to officers or others, and whether he was actively resisting a rrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight); cf. Mayard v. Hopwood , 10 5 F.3d 1226, 1227-28 (8th Cir. 1997) (reversing grant of summary judgment to officerWe do not address Miller & s appeal of the district court & s denial of summar y 2 judgment on Pannell & s state law claim as it is not properly before us. See Smith v

. Arkansas Dep & t of Correction , 103 F.3d 637, 649-50 (8th Cir. 1996). -3- on q ualified immunity grounds on claim of excessive force where plaintiff alleged she had been slapped in face and punched in chest while being transported to polic e headquarters in handcuffs; lack of serious injury not dispositive). Accordingly, we affirm. 2 A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.