A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e12,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT DE L AR I CK HUNT E R, a l s o k n o wn as D el ari ck E van s,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. J O E L M . Y O U N G , i n hi s offi ci al and i ndi vi dual capa ci tyas a Ser geantof the W y andott e C ount yD et ent i on C en ter, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 3371 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 3 0 7 4 - M LB)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M c CO NNELL , P O R F IL IO , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es.

D el ar i ck H unt er , form er l ya det ai nee a tt he W y andot t e C ountyD et ent i on C ent eri n K ans as C i tyand curr ent l ya pr i s oneri n the Lansi ng C or r ect i onal Faci l i ty , appea l s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s 42 U . S. C . § 1983 cl ai m forI n c o n n e c t i o n wi th th i s i n c i d e n t , M r . Hu n t e rwa s l a t e rc o n v i c t e d o f t wo 1 count s of batt eryon a l aw enfor cementoffi cerand s ent ence d t o a t erm of 152 m o n th s o f

c o n fin e m e n t in th e K a n s a s D e p a rt m e n t o f C o rr e c tio n s .

- 2- m onet arydamages agai ns tSer geantJ oel M . Y oung, a s her i ff’ s offi ceratthe detent i on center , i n h i s offici al and i nd i vidual capac i t i es. W e exerci se j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m. I. O n F e b ru a ry1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , M r. H u n ter w a s h e ld in th e W y a n d o tte C o u n ty D e te n tio n C e n te r p e n d in g s e n te n c in g , in lo c k d o w n s ta tu s fo r d is c ip lin a ry re a s o n s . W hi l e r ece i vi ng hi s dai l ym edi cat i on i n hi s cel l , he w as i nvol ved i n a phy s i cal al t er cat i on w i th deput i es notnamed as defe ndant s i n thi s cas e. T he deput i es us ed for ce t o s ubdue and ha ndcuff hi m . M r . H unt er , w ho s us t ai ned a c uton hi s upper lip d u rin g th e in c id e n t, w a s b rie flylef t in h is c e ll. 1 Shor t l yaft erw ar ds , Sgt . Y oung arr i ved t o as s i s tt he otherdeput i es , w ho neede d t o r e- ent erthe ce l l t o r etr i eve dr opped key s . M r . H unt erw as s t andi ng and lo o k in g o u t o f

h is c e ll w in d o w . S g t. Y o u n g o rd e re d M r. H u n ter to sit o n h is b u n k . W h e n M r. H u n ter d id n o t h e e d th e o rd e r, S g t. Y o u n g w a rn e d th a t h e w o u ld u se a tas e r g u n . In th e fa c e o f f u rth e r n o n c o m p lian c e , S g t. Y o u n g o p e n e d th e c e ll and fi r ed the t as ertw i ce a tM r . H unt er , hi t t i ng hi m i n the upperand l ow erback. Sgt . Y oung t hen r ecove r ed the key s and a nur s e ent er ed the ce l l t o exami ne, w as h,- 3-

and banda ge the mi norw ounds M r . H unt err ece i ved i n the ea r l i erfr aca s w i th the dep uti es and f

rom the tas er hi t s. I n the w ake of

the t as erdepl oym ent , M r . H unt erfi l ed s ui tagai ns tthe Sher i ff of

W y andott e C ount y , al l egi ng t he us e of e xces s i ve for ce a nd al s o del ay ordeni al of appr opr i at e medi cat i on forhi s H I V - pos i t i ve condi t i on. T he Sher i ff pr epar ed and f

i l ed a r eportdet ai l i ng the fa ctual r ecor d, pur s uantt o Mar t i nezv. A ar on , 570 F. 2d 317, 319- 20 ( 10t h C i r . 1978) . M r . H unt erfi l ed a r es pons e t o t he r eport , admi t t i ng onl ythatthe i ni t i al al t er cat i on t ook pl ace and thathe had be en s hotw i th the t as ergun. T hr ough l at erfi l i ngs , M r . H unt eramended hi s compl ai ntt o m odi fythe c la im s a g a in s t th e S h e ri ff a n d a d d a n e x c e s s iv e -fo rc e c la im a g a in s t S g t. Y o u n g . T h e S h eriff

w as d ism issed fro m the c ase an d S g t. Y o u n g m o v ed fo r sum m ary j udgm enton qual i fi ed- i m m uni tygr ounds . T he di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed the mot i on, det erm i ni ng t hatt he El eventh A m endmentbarr ed the off i ci al - capa ci tycl ai m and thatqual i fi ed i m m uni tys hi el ded Sgt . Y oung fr om l i abi l i tyon the i ndi vi dual - capa ci tycl ai m . M r . H unt ernow appea l s the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on. II. “W e r evi ew t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s hol di ng on s um m aryj udgm entand the E l eventh A m endmentde novo. ” C a lla h a n v . P op p e ll , 471 F. 3d 1155, 1158 (10t h C i r. 20 06 ). “S um m aryj ud gm ent i s approp ri at e ‘i f t he p l eadings, depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the- 4-

aff i davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ’ ” C ooper m an v. D a v id , 2 1 4 F .3 d 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 6 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o tin g F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c )) . “[ A ] m ere fa ctua l dispu te w il l no t prec lud e su m m aryjud g m en t; instead , there m us tbe a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t . ” Id . “[ T ]h e su b sta n tiv e law w ill i dent i fyw hi ch fa ct s ar e mat er i al , ” and “ [o] nl ydi s put es overfac t s thatm i ght affectthe out come of t he s ui tunderthe governi ng l aw w i l l pr oper l ypr ecl ude the entryof s um m aryj udgm ent . ” Id . M r . H unt eri s r epr es ent i ng hi m s el f on appe al s o h is p le a d in g s w ill b e c o n s tru e d lib e ra lly. See Hai nes v. Ker ner , 404 U . S. 519, 5 2 0 -21 (19 7 2 ). O ffic ia l-c a p a c ity c la im I ti s w el l - s ett l ed thata r eques tform oneydamages agai ns ta s t at e defendant i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyi s gener al l ybarr ed byt he El eventh A m endmentt o the C o n s titu tio n . See Whi t e v. C ol or ado , 8 2 F .3 d 3 6 4 , 3 6 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). A l though t he “s t at e mayw ai ve i t s E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni ty , ” the w ai ver “mustbe unequi vocal . . . s t at ed byt he mostexpr es s l anguage orbys uch overw hel m i ng i m pl i cat i on fr om t he t extof a s t at e s t atut oryorcons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on as w i l l l eave no r oom foranyotherr eas onabl e cons truct i on. ” Johns v. Stew art , 5 7 F .3 d 1 5 4 4 , 1 5 5 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n s a n d a lte ra tio n s o m itte d ).- 5-

M r. H u n ter a ss e rts th a t K a n sa s w a iv e d its im m u n ityb ye n a c tin g K a n . S tat. § 1 9 -8 1 1 , w h ich p ro v id e s th a t a c o u n tysh e riff h a s “ c h a rg e a n d c u sto d yo f th e jail of hi s county ” and thatthe s her i ff a nd “hi s s ur et i es s hal l be l i abl e” forthe ac t s of

“ h is d e p u t[ ies ] o r ja iler[ s].” T h is g e n e ra l lan g u a g e c a n n o t b e re a so n a b ly cons trued as a w ai verof K ans as ’ s i m m uni tyagai ns t§ 1983 pr i s onercl ai m s i n t he fe d era l cou rt s. B ec au se M r. H u n ter’s r eq u ested reli ef is fo r on lym o n etary damages , s over ei gn i m m uni tybar s hi s cl ai m agai ns tSgt . Y oung i n hi s offi ci al c a p a c ity. In d iv id u a l-c a p a c ity c la im T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o det erm i ned thatSgt . Y oung w as ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed im m u n ityo n M r. H u n ter ’s c laim th a t th e u se o f th e tas e r g u n a m o u n ted to exce s s i ve for ce i n vi ol at i on of the Ei ghth A m endment ’ s pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tcruel and unus ual puni s hm ent . W hen a de fenda nti nvokes t he defens e of qua l i fi ed im m u n ity , a p lai n ti ff

m u st “sati sfya h ea v ytw o -pa rtb u rde n to av o id su m m ary jud g m en t: (1) tha t th e d efen d an t’ s ac ti o n s v iolated a co n sti tuti o n al or statutory ri g h t and (2) tha t th e righ t w as c learlyestab li sh ed at th e ti m e o f th e d efen d an t’ s unl aw ful conduct . ” Serna v. C olo. D ep’tof C orrs . , 455 F. 3d 1146, 1150 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he di s tr i ctcourtr es ol ved the mat t eratt he first ste p , h o ld in g th a t M r. H u n ter h a d n o t d e m o n stra ted a n yc o n stitu tio n a lly p ro h ib ite d c o n d u c t.- 6-

W hetherfor ce i s cons t i tut i onal l yexce s s i ve depe nds upon the ci r cumst ance s c o n f ro n tin g th e o ffic e r a n d th e n a tu re a n d a m o u n t o f fo rc e a p p lie d b yth e o ffic e r. See Whit l ey v. A l bers , 475 U . S. 312, 321 ( 1986) . W hetheran off i cer ’ s conduct w as r eas onabl e i s eval uat ed fr om the vi ew poi ntof a r eas onabl e off i ceratthe s c e n e . Medi na v. C r am , 252 F. 3d 1124, 1131 ( 10th C i r . 2001) . A s the di s tr i ct courtnot ed, “[t ] he ‘ cor e i nqui r y ’ . . . i s ‘ w hetherfor ce w as appl i ed i n a g o o d -fa ith e ffo rt to m a in tain o r re sto re d isc ip lin e , o r m a licio u slya n d sa d istica lly t o caus e harm . ’ ” Ser na , 455 F. 3d at1152 ( quot i ng Huds on v. McMi l l i an , 50 3 U. S. 1 , 7 (1 9 9 2 )). “ W e c a n in fe r m a licio u s, sa d istic in ten t f ro m th e c o n d u c t it se lf w her e ‘ ther e ca n be no l egi t i m at e purpos e’ forthe off i cer s ’ conduct . ” Id. ( quot i ng Sm i th v. C ochr an , 3 3 9 F . 3 d 1 2 0 5 , 1 2 1 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )). Feder al court s have he l d thatthe us e of a t as erors i m i l ars tun gun i s not p e r s e u n c o n s titu tio n a l w h e n u s e d to c o m p e l o b e d ie n c e b yin m a te s . See D r aperv. R eynolds , 369 F. 3d 1270, 1278 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng t hata “s i ngl e us e of the t as ergun caus i ng a one- t i m e s hocki ng” aga i ns ta “hos t i l e, bel l i ger ent , and u n c o o p e ra tiv e ” a rre ste e in o rd e r to e ffe c tu a te th e a rre st w a s n o t ex c e ss iv e fo rc e in th e to talityo f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s); Jas perv. Thal acke r , 999 F. 2d 353, 354 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (u sin g stu n g u n to su b d u e a n u n ru lyin m a te d id n o t v io late E ig h th A m endmentw her e pl ai nt i ff fai l ed t o pr ove thatthe off i cer s us ed the s tun gun “sa d ist icall yo r m ali ciou sly ” to c au se h arm ); C aldw el lv. Moo re , 968 F. 2d 595, 6 0 2 (6th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) (use o f stu n g u n ag ains t disrup ti v e p ri so n er to res toreForthi s r eas on, w e nee d notr eac h M r . H unt er ’ s ar gum entt hatt he di s tr i ct 2 courti m pr oper l yr el i ed on the ver s i on of the fa ct s pr es ent ed i n the Mar t i nez re p o rt.

- 7- d isc ip lin e a n d o rd e r d o e s n o t v io late E ig h th A m e n d m e n t); Mi chenf elderv. Sum ner , 860 F. 2d 328, 336 ( 9th C i r . 1988) ( pol i cyof al l ow i ng us e of t as erguns on i nm at e w ho r efus es t o s ubm i tt o a s tr i p s ear ch does notcons t i tut e cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent ) . A nd “thi s i s s o w hetherthe i nm at e i s l ocked i n hi s pr i s on cel l ori s i n handcuffs . ” Sot o v. D i ckey , 744 F. 2d 1260, 1270 ( 7th C i r . 1984) (d is c u s s in g u s e o f

“ m a c e , te a r g a s , o r o th e r c h e m ic a l a g e n ts ” a g a in s t in m a te s ). C o u rts “ sh o u ld . . . b e e x tre m e lyc a u tio u s b e fo re a ttem p tin g to p ro h ib it o r lim it th e n e c e s s a ry m e a n s ” p ri s o n o ffic ia ls u s e to c a rr yo u t th e irre s p o n s ib iliti e s . Id. T he eva l uat i on of M r . H unt er ’ s exce s s i ve- for ce c l ai m , as cons i der ed fr om S gt. Y ou ng ’s van t age p oint , i s not depen den tup on a res olut i on of d i sputed fact s. 2 B oth M r . H unt er ’ s s ubm i s s i ons and the Mar t i nezr eporti ndi cat e thatSgt . Y oung s oughtt o ent erM r . H unt er ’ s cel l w i th an aw ar enes s t hata phy s i cal al t er cat i on had j us tt aken pl ace and thatM r . H unt erw as i n l ockdow n. Sgt . Y oung or der ed M r. H u n te r t o g o to h is b u n k a n d M r. H u n te r d id n o t c o m p ly. M r . H unt eral l eges thatthe otheroffi cer s w er e r es pons i bl e fort he i ni t i al al t er cat i on, thathe w as as ki ng fora j ai l s upervi s or , and thathi s phy s i cal condi t i on pr event ed hi m fr om fol l ow i ng Sgt . Y oung’ s or der s . H e does notal l ege, how ever , thatSgt . Y oung w as aw ar e of M r . H unt er ’ s ver s i on of the pr ece di ng- 8-

in c id e n t o r t h a t h e p e rc e iv e d M r. H u n te r’ s a lle g e d ly im p a ir e d p h y s ic a l c o n d itio n . I ns t ead, M r . H unt ers ugges t s thatSgt . Y oung s houl d “have as ked [hi m ] w hy[he] d id n ’t sit, o n c e [ S g t. Y o u n g ] o p e n e d th e d o o r,” s o th a t h e “ c o u ld h a v e to ld h im th e p a in s [ h e ] w a s h a v in g in [ h is ] h ip a n d le g s .” R e p ly B r. a t 5 . W e dec l i ne t o s econd gue s s Sgt . Y oung’ s “s pl i t - s econd j udgm ent s ” about th e n e c e ss a rya m o u n t o f fo rc e m a d e in th e se “ ten se , u n c e rta in , an d ra p id ly e v o lv in g ” c ir c u m s ta n c e s . G r aham v. C onnor , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 8 6 , 3 9 7 (1 9 8 9 ). M r. H u n ter h a s n o t d e m o n stra ted th a t u se o f th e tas e r w a s o bjec tiv e ly u n re a so n a b le a n d th e re fo re v io late d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t u n d e r th e E ig h th A m endment . A s a r es ul t , qual i fi ed i m m uni tys hi el ds Sgt . Y oung fr om M r . Hu n t e r ’ s p u r s u i to f a n e x c e s s i v e - fo r c e c l a i m.

III . T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j udgm enti s A FFIRM E D . M r . H unt eri s r emi nded that h e is o b lig a ted to c o n tin u e m a k in g p a rtial p a ym e n ts to w a rd th e b a lan c e o f h is a ss e ss e d fe e s a n d c o sts u n til th e ya re p a id in f u ll. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge