The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for 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Officer, * [UNPUBLISHED]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, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this interlocutory appeal, Blytheville, Arkansas Police Officer Barry Miller

appeals the district 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 harassment, 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 his chest with her right hand. Miller then hit Pannell in the face, causing redness

and swelling, for which Pannell was treated by a doctor. 

In an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment based on

qualified immunity, this court has jurisdiction to review, de novo, the abstract issues

of law relating to the existence of qualified immunity. See Sisneros v. Nix, 95 F.3d

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 court deemed adequately supported

for purposes of summary judgment, see Allison v. Department of Corrections, 94 F.3d

494, 496 (8th Cir. 1996), this court must determine whether a reasonable official in

defendant’s position would have known that his conduct violated that right, see

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 qualified

immunity because under Pannell’s version of the facts, she was arrested for a minor

offense, posed no immediate safety threat to Miller, and was already detained at the

police station. Thus, it was objectively unreasonable for Miller to hit her in the face

with enough force to cause injury. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)

(excessive-force claims involving arrestees analyzed under Fourth Amendment

“objective reasonableness” standard, judged by reasonable officer on scene; analysis

involves consideration of facts and circumstances, including crime at issue, whether

suspect posed immediate safety threat to officers or others, and whether he was actively

resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight); cf. Mayard v. Hopwood, 105

F.3d 1226, 1227-28 (8th Cir. 1997) (reversing grant of summary judgment to officer
We do not address Miller&s appeal of the district court&s denial of summary

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 qualified immunity grounds on claim of excessive force where plaintiff alleged she

had been slapped in face and punched in chest while being transported to police

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.