Anothe r offi c er, Se rg ea ntTom Thr one , was i nc l uded i n the 1 origi nal c om plaint, but M r. St ainback voluntaril y d is m is se d his cl aim s againstSer geant Throne.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3563 C HARLE SS T AI NB ACK, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . R Y AN D I X ON, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 3:0 7-cv-03 09 1-JES-BGC

—Jean ne E . Sc ott, Judge .
A RGUED A PRIL 15, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UNE 30, 2009

Befo re F LA UM, R IPPLE a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e . C h ar les Sta inb ac k b r ou gh t t h is acti on pursuan t to 4 2 U.S
. C. § 1 983 aga i nst Deputy Rya n D ix on , D ep u ty D ou gla s M c Fa rla n d an d Sh er iff D on ald A lbre cht ( “the Offi cer s”)
. H e a l l ege d that he suffer ed 1 shoul der i nj uri es b ec ause the o ffi cer s had used e xcessi ve2 N o. 08

- 3563 f or ce whil e a rr est i ng him . Th e di str i ct c ourtgr anted su m m ary j ud gm ent i n f avo r of th e O ffice rs ; i t co nc l ude d tha t th eir co nduc t was r ea so nabl e unde r the ci rcum sta nces. M r. S tai nback n ow chal l enges the dist ri ct co ur t’ s gr an t o fs um m ar y j udg m en t. He c l ai m s th atthe di s t r i c tc o ur te mpl o y e d, t o h i s p r ej ud i c e , a fl a we d me tho dol ogywh en i t a dd re sse d, as an i ni ti alm atter, wh ether the Offi cer s’ co nd uct vi ol ate d his co nsti tuti onalr i ghts. H e a lso m ain ta in s t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr on eo u sly c on c lu d ed th at th e O ffice rs ’ be h av ior w as rea so n ab le and there f or e did not vi ol ate the Four th A m en dm ent. Upon e xa m i na ti o n o fthe r ec o r d, we co nc lud e, f o r the reason s set forth in this op inion, t h a t th e d istri ct cou rt em ployed an acceptabl e m etho dol ogy, thati ts approach wor k ed no unf ai r ne ss t o M r . S ta i nb ack and tha t th e Offi cer s di d not e m plo y e xcessi ve f or ce i n vi ol ati on o f hi s F o ur thAm en dm en t r i g ht s. W e th er efo r e affi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
I B AC KGR OUND A . Fac ts M r. S tai nback w as vi si ti ng hi s s i ste r at the s eni orcit izens’ bui l ding i n RoyalLakes , I l l i noi s, wh en an i ntoxi cate d re sid en t o f th a t fac ility be c am e a n gr y w ith h im an d thr ea te ne d to c al l the po l i ce . A r es i den t atthe se ni o r c i ti zens’ b ui l di ngdi d c al l the po l i ce t o r epo r t th e di sturba nc e, a nd the Offi ce r s, a l o ngwi thS er g ea nt T om Th rone, respo nd ed to the call. W h e n t h e O fficersN o. 08

- 3563 3

A t o n e p o i n t in th e r ec o rd , th is n a m e i s sp el le d “B o w z a .” 2 W e sha ll assum e, ho w ev er, that th e p red om ina nt sp elling is cor rect. I ti s no t c le ar fro m the r ec or d whethe r M r. St ai nbac k c on- 3 v ey ed this b elief to the O fficers. ar riv ed atth e s en ior c itiz en s’ b u i l d i n g , th ey w er e t old that M r. S tai nback had been i nvol ved i n the disturbance b u t h ad leftth e a re a p rior to th e O ffice rs ’ arr iva l. T h e Of f i c e r s s u s p e c t e d th a tMr
. S t a i nb a c kwa s a tAl Bauza’s r esi dence. They went to Bauza’ s ho us e, kno cked

2 on the doorand ask ed f orM r. S tai nback. M r. S tai nback vo l un t a r i l y l e ftthe h o us e . De pu t y Di xo n a s k e d h i m to turn a ro und and f ace th e w all; M r. S tai nback com pli ed w i th the r equest. Deputy Dixo n the n i nfo rm ed M r. S tai nback that he was bei ng pl aced under a rr est because o fan o utsta nd i ng tr affi c warr an t an d aske d M r. S tai nback to pu t hi s hands be hi nd hi s ba ck. M r . S ta i nb ac kdi d no t do s o. Inst ea d, he a sk ed th e Of fi ce r s no t to handcuffhi m b ec au se he b el i ev ed he wo u l d b e h u r ti fh e we r e h a n d c u ff e d

. He d i d no t, h o w- 3 eve r, i nfo rm the Offi cer s o fany preexi sti ng i nj uri es to hi s a r ms o r s h o u l d e r s . D e p u t i e s D i x o n a n d Mc F a r l an d g r a b b e d Mr
. S t a i nb a c k ’ s a r ms , qu i c k l y p u l l e d h i s a r ms behin d his bac k, handcuffed hi m and perf or m ed a patdo wn se ar ch

. A ft e r h a nd c uffi ngMr
. S t a i nb a c k, the de pu t i e s wa l k ed him dow n th e d rivew ay tow ard De p ut y M cFarl an d ’s squad car. A s they di d so, theyto l d M r. S tai nback th at he cou ld be rele ased up on p aying a $20 0 bon d

. M r.4 N o. 08

- 3563

T he O fficer s d r ov e to M r. Stainb ack ’ s resid en ce in sep ara te 4 v eh icles. St ai nback tol d the Of fi cer s th at hi s daughter, wh o w as a t hi s ho us e , c o ul d po s t hi s b o nd

. Th e Offi c e r s deci ded to tak e M r. Stai nback to hi s ho m e s o that hi s daughter coul d pay hi s bo nd , and they pl aced hi m i n the backo f t he squ a d c a r . A ft e r Mr
. S t a i nb a c kw a s s e a t e d , h e c o mp lai ne d that the h an d cu ff s w ere h u rting his sho uld ers an d asked the O fficers to rem ove t h e m . T he Offi cers told M r. Stainbac k tha t the y w ou ld rem ove th e han d cu ffs i n a few m i nutes. Deputy M cFar l and then drov e M r. S tai nback to h is ho m e. Duri ng the two- to thr ee- 4 m i nute dri ve, M r. S tain backag ai n ask ed Depu ty M cFarlan d to rem ove h is han d cu ff s beca us e the y w ere hurti ng hi s shoul ders, but Dep uty M cFar l and d id not do so

. W he n th e O ffice r s a rri ved at M r. Stainbac k’s re si dence, Deputy Dixon ra ng the doorbel l and expla i ned the s i tuati on t o M r. S tai nback’ s daughter

. S he post ed M r. St ai nback’ s bond. The Offi cer s then rem ove d M r. S tai nback’ s handcuff s. M r. S tai n backes ti m ate s that h e wa s i n h a n d c u ff s f o r fi ft e e n t o t we n t y mi n u t e s . He al l eg es tha t, a s a r es ul t o fthe Offi ce r s’ c o nduc t, he su ffered tw o torn rotator cu ff s, w hich req uired surgery and m edi caltr eat m ent.N o. 08

- 3563 5 B . P roc ee d in gs in th e D is tric t C ou rt M r. St ai nback fi l ed a com pla i nt i n the U ni ted Stat es Dist ri ct Court fo r the CentralD i str i ct ofIl l i noi s; h e a l l ege d th at th e O ffice rs h ad u se d ex c es siv e fo rc e a ga in st h im in vi ol ati on o fhi s co nsti tuti onalr i ghts. I n thei r answ erto M r. S tai nback’ s co m pla i nt, the Offi cer s a sse rt ed that they w er e e nti tl ed to qual i fi ed im m unity. The Offi cer s l ate r fi l ed separ ate m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent: Deputie s Di xo n a nd M cF ar l an d arg ue d tha t su m m ar y j udg m en t wa s p r o p e r b e c a u s e th e y w e r e e n t i t l e d t o qu a l i fi e d i mm unity; S heri f fA lbre cht m ai ntain ed that he was enti tl ed to sum m ar y j ud gm ent b ecause he ha d not be en i nvol ved pers onal l y i n the ar re st. The dis tr i ct courtgrante d the Of fi cer s’ m oti ons. I t no ted th at th e O fficers had a vali d w arran t to arre st M r. Stainb ack. I t also r ecogn ized that, w he n th e Offi cers in st ru c te d M r. Sta inb ac k t o p l ac e h is h an d s b eh in d h is back, he had f ai l ed to do so. I n l i ght o fthes e ci rcum sta nces, th e cou rt de term ined , i t w as reason able for th e O fficers to quick l y m ov e M r. S tai nback’ s a rm s be hi nd hi s ba ck, to hand cuffhi m and to l eave hi m i n handcu ff s fo r fi ftee n to tw en ty m inu tes u nt ilth e y s ecu red his bond

. Th e cou rt r ea so ne d tha t, b ec au se the a m o unto ff o r ce us ed bythe Offi cer s had be en r eas onabl e under the c i rcum sta nces, s ummar y j ud g men ti n f a v o r o fthe Offi c e r s wa s appropri ate
.6 N o. 08

- 3563 II DI S C US S I ON “Su m m ar y j udg m en t i s appr o pr i at e when th er e i s no genui ne i ssue as to any m ate ri al f act and the m ovi ng par ty i s enti tl ed to j ud gm ent as a m att er of law

. ” Ant one t t iv. A bbo tt La bs. , 5 63 F
. 3d 58 7, 59 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( ci tingF ed. R. Civ. P. 56 ( c) )
. W e r evi ew th e d i str i ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o f su m m ar y j udg m en t de no vo , c o ns tr ui nga l l f ac ts a nd re aso nabl e in fer ences i n f avo r ofthe non- m ovi ng par ty. M ar i on v. Ci ty of

Corydon , Ind. , 5 59 F. 3d 700, 70 4 ( 7th C ir. 2009). W e fi rs t co nsi der whether the di str i ct c ou rtappli ed an acc eptable m etho dol og y a nd then turn t o the questi on o fwh etherthe offi cer s e m plo yed exce ssi ve f or ce.
A. To deter m i ne wh ethera defe n d an t i s e nti tl ed to quali fi ed i m m unity, co urts m ust a dd re ss tw o i ssues : ( 1) whethe r the de fenda ntv i o l at ed th e pl aint i ff’ s co nsti tution al rights and (2 ) wh etherthe ri ght a t i ssue w as c le a r l y es ta b lish ed atth e t im e o f th e v iola tio n . Phel an v. Vil l
. of Ly ons , 531 F .3 d 4 8 4 , 487 (7th C ir. 2008). M r. St ai nback cl ai m s that no ne o fthe Offi cer s a dd re sse d the fi rs t pr ong o fthi s t est

— w hetherthe Offi cer s’ use of f or ce was e xcessi ve

— i n thei r m ot ions f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. Rather, Deputie s Di xon and M cFar l and arg ued o n l y th a tth e y h a d n o tv i o l a t e d c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d l a w; Sh er iff A lbr ec h t c laim ed on ly th at h e c ou ld n ot be liab leN o. 08

- 3563 7 for M r. Sta inb ac k’s inju rie s b ec au se h e d id n ot p h ys ica lly touch M r. S tai nback and ther ef or e di d not par tici pate dir ectl y i n the al l ege dly un c on sti tuti onalco nd uct. M r . S ta i nb ac kmai nt ai ns tha t, b ecaus e no ne o fthe de f en d a n t s a d d r e s s e d th e fi r s tp r o n go fth e qu a l i fi e d i mm uni tyt es t, the di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed bya ddr es singthe i ssue. A t the ti m e the di str i ct c ourtente re d s u m m ar y j ud gm en t, Sau ci e rv. Katz, 53 3 U.S
. 19 4, 20 1 ( 2001 ) r equi re d that cour ts begi n t h ei r anal ysi s byaddress i ng the fi rs t pr o ngo fthe qua l i fi ed i m m uni tyt es t an d de te r m i ni ng wh eth erthe f ac ts , t ak eni n the l i ghtmos t f av o r ab l e to the pla i nti f f, d em onst ra ted thatthe defe nd ant’ s co nd uct vio lat ed t h e p lain tiff’s co n st itu tio n al rig h ts
. Id. ; Phel an , 531 F. 3d at 487. On ly if a const i tuti onalvi ol ati on was e s t a b l i s he d c o ul d a c o ur ta ddr e s s the s e c o nd i nqui ry : w hetherthe pla i nti ff’ s rightwas cl ear l y e stabl i shed at th e t im e o f th e v iola tio n . Sa uc ier, 53 3 U .S. at 2 01 ; Phel an , 5 3 1 F
. 3 d a t4 8 7
. T he S up r e me Co ur tn o w h a s c o nc l ud e d, ho wev er, tha t “whi l e th e se que nc e se t for th[ i n Sa uc ier ] is often a pp rop ria te, i t s houl d no l onge r be r ega rded as m andator y. ” Pears on v. Cal l ahan , 129 S. C t. 808, 818 (2009). Courts ar e no w “per m i tte d to exer ci se thei r sound discre ti on i n deci ding w hi ch of the tw o prongs o fthe quali fi ed i m m unity a nal ysi s s houl d be a dd re sse d fi rs t i n l i gh t of the c i rcum sta nces i n the parti cul arcas e a t hand. ” Id. In th i s ca se , the di st r i ctc o ur t unde r st and ably f o l l o wed the m et hodol ogym andated by Sa uc ierand fi rs t a dd re sse d w he th er the O fficers’ actions viol ated M r. Stainbac k’s const i tuti onalr i ghts. Because it f ound that no vi ol ati on8 N o. 08

- 3563 ha d o cc ur r ed, i t was unn eces sa r y f o r i t to a ddr es s th e r ea so nabl en es s o f th e Of fi ce r s’ a ct i o ns unde r the seco nd pro ng o fthe est abl i shed i nquir y. M r. S tai nback m ai ntai ns tha t th e di str i ct c ourttr eat ed hi m unfa i rl y b y a dd re ssi ng ini ti al l y the fi rst p rong o f the qu a l i fi e d i mm un i t y t e s t
. I n hi s v i e w, h e di d n o thave a f ai r opportunityto address the fi rs t pr ong ofthe tes t be ca us e th e Of fi ce r s’ m o ti o ns addr es se d o nl y the se co nd pr o nga nd, c onse que nt l y , he a ns wer ed o nl y the s ec o nd prong. W e ca nnot a ccept thi s co ntenti on. U pon ex am in ati on o fthe re cor d, w e m ust co ncl ud e that the Of fice rs ’ m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent a nd sup port i ng m em ora nd a r aised adequatel y b oth prongs o fthe quali fi ed im m u n ity te st . In th eir m e m o ra n d u m in s u p p or t o f th eir m ot ion , D ep u tie s D ix on an d M c Fa rla n d arg u ed e x p licit ly th at “th e m an ne r a n d m eth od of ha nd cu ffing [M r. St ai nback]

. . . was not an excess i ve use of f or ce, ” R. 32 at 8- 9, and rel i ed upon fe deralcas e l aw i n supp or t o fthat c on te n tio n . Th u s, D ep u tie s D ix on an d M c Fa rla n d sp ec ifical l y r ai sed the i ssue ofwh etherthey had used exce ssi ve forc e i n their m otion for su m m ary j ud gm en t. She riff A lbre cht d i d not rai se speci fi cal l y the qual i fi ed i m m unity i ssue. I nstea d, hi s s up port i ng m em orandum f ocuse d p rim ar ily on h is a rg u m en t th at h e d id n ot p ar tic ip at e in M r. S t a i nb a c k ’ s a r r e s t
. No t a b l y , h o we v e r, i n hi s r e s po nse to Sheriff A lbre cht’ s m oti on, M r. S tai nback cl ai m ed that Sher i f fA lbre cht was l iab le forf ai l i ng to i nter vene to preve nt the Deputie s fro m vi ol ati ng hi s co nsti tu tio nal ri ghts. R

. 34 at 5- 7. S heri ffA lbre cht then r esponded to t h e me r i t s o fth a ta r g u me n ta n d a r g ue d th a ti tw a s i m-N o. 08

- 3563 9 pr o per f o r M r . S ta i nb ac k to r ai se a f ai l ur e- to
- i nt er ve ne cl ai m a t th atpo i nti n the l i ti g at i o n. R. 38 a t 1- 4. The s u c c e s s o fMr
. S t a i nb a c k ’ s f a i l u r e - t o - i n t e r v e n e c l a i m, therefo re, was enti re l y dependent upon the i ssue of w hethera const i tutional vi ol ati on had oc curr ed as a re sul t of the Dep uti es’ cond uct

— th e is su e s q u ar ely r ai se d b y the sub m i ss i o n o fDe put i es Di xo n a nd M c Fa rla n d

. C

f. Leaf v
. Shel nutt, 400 F.3d 1070, 1093 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ Be c a us e we h a v e de t e r mi ne d tha tthe o ffi c er s’ acti ons i nsi de the apart m ent c onst i tuted nei theran i l l ega l se ar chno r a n i l l eg als ei zu r e, we m us t con cl ude tha t th e Leaf s do not have a co gni zabl e cl ai m ag ai nst Deputy Shel nutt f orf ai l i ng to i nter vene i n De p uty J aco bs’ actions.”). The parti es’ subm iss ion s t o t h e d ist ric t c ou rtd em on st ra te th at both pron gs of th e qu ali fi ed i m m un ity test w ere proper l y b ef or e the d istr i ct c ourt
. M r. S tai nback had ad eq u ate noti ce that the co urt m i ght r each b oth prongs of th e qual i fi ed i m m uni tyt es t i n the c o ur se o fde ci di ng the s um m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on. M oreo ver, as we noted ea rlier , Sa uc ier, th e contr ol l i ng pre cedent a t the ti m e o f the m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, r equi re d t h e d i str i ct c ou rt to ev al uate fi rs t whether the Offi cer s’ co nd uct vio lat ed M r. Sta inb ac k’s co n st itu tio n al rig h ts be for e it consi dered w hether hi s ri ghts w er e cl ear l y est abli shed at th e t im e o f th e v iola tio n . Sa uc ier, 5 33 U .S. a t 2 01 ; Phel an , 53 1 F. 3d at 487. M r. S tai nback ther ef or e s houl d have expected thatthe dist ri ct c ourtwould address fi rs t w hetherthe Offi cer s’ co nd uct co nsti tuted a const i tuti onal vi o l at i o n.10 N o. 08

- 3563

C om pare M ar i on v. C i ty of C orydon, Ind. , 55 9 F .3d 700 , 70 6 (7 th 5 C ir. 20 09 ) (hold ing tha t it w as rea son ab le for officer s t o d i scharge their fir earm s in th e p lai nti f f’ s direct ion wh en they r e a s on a bl y c ou l d h a ve be l i e ve d tha tthe pl a i nt if fp re s e nt e d a se ri o u s d a n g er to th e o ffice rs an d in n o ce n t b y sta n d er s), w ith A bdul l ahiv. C i ty of

M adiso n , 423 F. 3d 763, 769- 71 ( 7 th C ir . 2005) ( rejecti ng a qualifie d im m unity cl aim w here an of fic er m ay have us ed de adl y f or c e aga i ns tani ndi vi dual l yi ng pr one on th e g ro u n d w ith h is a rm s b eh in d h im ). B. T he Fourth A m e n d m en t’s reason ablen ess stan d ard g o v e r n s o ur e v a l u a t i o n o fa p l a i n t i ff’ s c l a i m th a tl a wen f o r ce m en t o f fi ce r s empl o y ed ex ce ss i ve f o r ce dur i ng an ar re st, an i nvest i gat or y s top o r any o therty pe of se izu re . Grah am v. Conno r, 490 U
. S. 38 6, 39 5 ( 1989 )
. A sse ssin g w hetherthe f or ce use d to eff ectuat e a part i cul ar se i zu r e i s r ea so nabl e “req uir es a c ar eful b al an ci ngo fthe na tu re and qu ali ty of th e intrus ion on th e ind ivi d ua l’ s F o ur thAm en dm en t inter es ts a g ai ns t th e co unt er va i l i ng gov er nm entali nter est s a t s tak e. ” Id. a t 39 6 ( ci ta ti ons a nd quotati on m ar ks om i tte d). Consequentl y, the use o f si gni fica n t o r eve n deadlyf or ce m ay be j usti fi ed w hen th e G ov er n m en t h as a sig n ifica n tly gra v e i n te re st in em plo yi ng such f or ce. The natur e a nd exte nt o fthe f or ce 5 th at m ay be u sed de p en d s up on th e cir c u m stan ces su rr o u n d i n g t h e a r r e s t, i n c l u d i n g “ th e s e v e r i t y o f th e c r i me at i ssue, wh etherthe suspect poses an i m m edi ate thr eat to the safety of the offi cer s or othe rs , and whethe r h e is acti vely r esis ti ng ar re st orat tem pti ng to ev ade ar re st byN o. 08

- 3563 11 fl i ght. ” Id. at 396. W e m ust v iew t h es e fa cto rs as they woul d ha ve appea r ed to a r ea so nabl e o ffi ce r a t th e scene. I n ass ess i ng the f acts fr om thatper specti ve, we m ust re cogni ze that offi cer s o ften need to m ake spl i tseco nd j ud gm ents based on ra pidl y deve l opi ng ev ents. H o lm es v. Vill. of H o

ffm a n E stat es , 51 1 F
. 3d 673, 68 5 ( 7th C ir. 2007). A n offi cerwh o has the r i ght to ar re st an i nd i vi du alal so has t he r i g ht t o us e s o me de g r e e o f ph y s i c a l f o r ce o r th re at of forc e t o e ffec tu at e t h e a rre st, Grah am , 49 0 U.S
. at 3 9 6 , b utth a tr i g hti s c i r c ums c r ib e d b y the F o ur th Am e nd

m en t’ s i ns i st en ce o n r ea so nabl en es s. In th i s r es pec t, o ur case s i nd i cate t h at an offi cerm ay not knowingl y use hand cuff s i n a way that wil l i nfli ct unneces sar y pai n or i nj ury on a n i nd i vi du alw h o prese nts l i ttl e o r no r i sk of fligh t o r th re at of inj u ry . SeeH erzog v . Vil l. of Winnetka, Ill
. , 309 F.3d 1 04 1, 1043 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. Of cour se, wh ether an offic er kn ow s t h at a g i v e n a c tio n u n n ec es sa rily w ill ha rm a particu lar ind ivi d ua l w illde p en d up on th e circum sta nces ofthe ar re st. I n so m e ca ses , the fac t that a n act w il l cau se p ain or inj ury w il l be cl ear from th e n a tu re of t h e a c t it se lf. See, e . g. , Paynev. Paul ey , 3 37 F
. 3d 767, 77 9 (7t h C ir. 20 0 3 ) (c on c lu d in g t h at it w as n ot ob j ec tiv ely r e a s o n a b l e f o r th e o ffi c e r t o t wi s tthe pl a i n t i ff’ s a r m, f or ce he r ar m s be hin d herbac k a nd o ver - ti ghten her hand cuff s to the poi nt of causi ng num bness and signi fi cant inj ury w hen the pla i nti ffhad not th re atened harm to anyo ne, was not re si sti ng ar re st and w as charg ed w i th a m i nor o ffen se)
. I n other case s, i t m ay beco m e cl ear to an ar re sti ng o f fi certha t, al though a part i cul aract i on12 N o. 08

- 3563

SeeFra ze l l v. Fl anigan , 10 2 F. 3d 8 77, 88 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96 ) ( not i ng, 6 in the al ter nati ve, thata re asonable j ury co u ld have f ound that the officer k ne w of the p lain tiff’ s m ed ical co nd ition an d “co u ld t he n h ave c onc l uded that[ t he offi c er ’ s ] c onduc ti n t he f ac e of th a t k n o w le d g e w a s u n re a so n a b le ” ), ove rr ul ed on oth er gro unds by M cN ai r v. C of

f ey, 2 7 9 F .3d 4 6 3 (7 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ); Walton v. C ity o f S o u th field , 9 9 5 F
. 2 d 1 3 3 1 , 1342 ( 6 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( “ An e x c e s s i ve u se of f or ce claim cou ld b e p rem ised on [ the officer ’s] hand cuf fing [ the plaint iff ] if he knew that she had an injured a rm a n d i fh e b el ie v ed th a t sh e p o se d n o th re a t to h im .”), supe rs ede d by co urtr ul e on othergr ounds

. w ou ld n ot ord in ar ily h ar m an a r r es te e, th e a c tio n w ou ld ne v e r t he l e s s c a us e pa i n o r i nj ur y t o the p a r t i c ul a r i nd i v i dua l being p lac e d u nd er arrest. For exa m p le, an offi cer’s othe rwis e r eas onabl e co nd uct m ay be obj ecti vel y unre asonab l e when the o ffi cerkno w s o fan a rr est ee’ s m edi cal probl em s. 6 H owever, a re aso nabl e o ffi cercannot be expecte d to acc om m od ate an inj ury that i s not ap p aren t or that oth erw ise h as n ot b ee n m ad e kn ow nt o h im
. SeeTibbs v. City of Chi cago , 469 F. 3d 661, 66 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( concl ud i ng tha t th e ar r es tingo f fi cer di d no t ac t unr ea so nabl y whenhe f as te ne d the pl ai nti ff’ s ha ndcu ff s to o t i g ht l y , a nd the pla i nti f f, wh ose i nj uri es did notr eq u i re m edi calcar e, compl ai ne d o nl y o nc e ab o uthi s ha ndcu ff s “wi th o ut elaborating on any inju r y , nu m bn ess, or d egree of pain” ); E stat e of P hil l i p s v. C ity of M ilw a uk ee, 12 3 F
. 3d 586, 59 4 ( 7th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( ho l di ng tha t i t wa s no t un r e a s o nab l e f or th e o f fi ce r s to pl ac e th e a rre st ee i n a pr o ne po si ti o n, ev entho ug h do i ngs o r es ul te d i n h i s dea th, whentheN o. 08

- 3563 13

Unl i ke the pl ai nt i f fi n Tibbs v. C i ty of C hi cago , 469 F. 3d 661, 666 7 ( 7th Cir

. 2006) , M r. St ainback did suffer an inj ury that requir ed m ed ical trea tm en t, an d , he sub m its, an injur y o f suc h serio u sness c o n stitutes evidence from w hich a j ury could fi nd that unn ece ss ary f orce w a s u se d

. O ur cas es m ake cl ear, how ever, that, t o s u rv ive s um m ary j ud gm ent, a plai nti f fm ust do m ore th a n p o in t to h is inju ry o r its ser io u sn es s; h e m u st a lso “i d en tify the spe ci f i c unre as onabl e conductth a t c a u se d h is o r h er inju ri es .” A bdul l ahi, 42 3 F. 3d at 77 0- 71 ( em phas i s s uppl i ed)

. I n A bdul l ahi, the f act th at the arre stee u ltim ately d ied fro m his inju ries, t o g e t h e r w ith the ev id en ce tha t the d efend an t ha d kn elt on his back, presen te d a jury ques ti on as t o w hether the offic er re as ona bl y a ppl i ed s l i ghtpr es s ur e with h i s kne e t o pr eve ntthe ar re s t ee fro m s qui rm i ng, as the offi c er c l ai m ed , or whethe r he u nr easo na b ly p u shed d ow n o nto the p lain tiff’ s ba ck w ith his fu ll w ei g h t, a s th e p la in tiff c la im ed

. Id. a t7 7 1 -7 3 . T h e p l a i n t i ff’s i nt e r pr e t a t i onde s c r i be d u n reasonab l e c onduc twhi c h c aus ed the i nj ur y i n ques t i on. Her e, M r. Stainbac k c l ai m s on l y thatthe O f fic ers “quickl y” pu t hi s arm s behind his back and hand cuf f ed him

. A s w e sha ll exp lain , M r. Stainb ack ’s v e rsion of the ev en ts do es not des cribe cond uct that w as object ivel y unreasonable. Theref ore, evidence ofthe s eri ousness ofM r. St ainback’ s inj ury alo ne , w ith o u t e v id en ce of an ob jectiv ely un rea son ab le act, can no t create a g en u ine issue of f act a s to w he the r the O fficers’ act ions w ere reas onab le

. officers w ere u na w are of th e a rrestee’s m ed ical p roblem s). 7 W e m us t co nc l ude tha t th e r ec o r d e st ab l i sh es thatthe O f fi c e r s ’ a c t i o n s w e r e r e a s o nab l e u n d e r th e c i r c u mstan ces su rroun d ing M r. S t ainba ck’s arrest. T he Offi cers d id n ot u se h an d c u ffs in a m an n er th at w ou ld cle ar ly i nj ur e o r ha r m a t y pi c a l a r r e s t e e . F ur the r mor e , i t w as not14 N o. 08

- 3563 obj ecti vel y c l earto the Offi cer s that M r. S tai nback su ffer ed fr o m a n y in firm itie s, see Est at eof Phi l l ips , 12 3 F. 3d at 594, nordi d M r. S tai nback i nfo rm the Offi cer s that he had a preexi sti ng i nj ury orco nd itio n t hat would be a g g r a v a t e d i fh e we r e h a nd c uff e d, see Fraze l l v. Flanigan , 1 0 2 F
. 3 d 8 7 7, 8 8 5 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 6 )
. Ha d th e O ffi c e r s k n o wn of a p re ex ist in g inj u ry or m ed ica l co n d i tio n th at w ou ld have been agg ra vate d by handc u ffi ng M r. S tai nback, o r had M r. S tai nback com m unica ted to the Office rs that h e s u ffer ed from su c h an infir m ity , th e O ffice rs ce rt ain ly would hav e be eno bl i g at ed to c o ns i dertha t i nf o r m at i o n, togeth er w ith th e othe r rel evan t circum st a nc es, in d eterm ining w he t h e r i t w a s a p p r o p r iate to han d cu ff M r . S ta i nb ac k

. The r ec o r d do es no t su ppo r t th e co nc l usi ontha tthe Offi c e r s k ne w o r we r e i nf o r med o fa nysuch i nfi rm i ti es. A t m ost, the re cor d show s that M r. S tai nback sa i d tha t he di d no t want to be ha ndcu ff ed be ca us e he thought i t w oul d hurt and that M r. Stai nback com pla i ned generall y about pai n afterhe was handcuffed. These gener al i zed co m pla in ts , w ithout any e l abor ati on re ga rd in g a p re ex ist in g inj u ry or ot h er inf i rm ity , w ou ld not hav e place d a reasona ble offi cer on n otice t h at M r. S t a i nb a c kw o u l d b e i nj u r e d b y th e s e a c t i o n s . We th erefore m us t con clud e tha t the Offi cers’ actions w ere re a s o nab l e u nd e r the c i r c ums t a nc e s a nd tha tn o v i ol atio n of th e F ou rt h A m en d m en t o c c u rre d

.N o. 08

- 3563 15 Conclusi on Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, the j ud gm ent o ft h e d i str i ct c o ur ti s a f fi r med

. A FFI RMED

6- 30- 09