United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1868

___________

Francis Dewes, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

City of Bloomfield, as a municipal *

corporation; Tom Jones, individually * [UNPUBLISHED]

and in his official capacity as a *

Bloomfield Police Officer, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 17, 2004

Filed: November 23, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Late one evening, concerned citizens telephoned police in Bloomfield, Iowa

and reported that two minors were smoking and drinking outside their home. Police

went to the home and saw the two young men, who attempted to hide behind a tree.

One of the uniformed officers got out of his squad car and approached the youths.

They fled. The officer shouted, “Stop, police,” but the young men continued to run.

The officer chased them on foot. One of the youths ran through a nearby carport and

entered the adjacent residence through an exterior screen door and inner wooden
*

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa. 

-2-

door. Based on the officer’s concern for the safety of the home’s residents, the officer

followed the young man inside about ten to fifteen seconds after his entry. The

officer did not knock or otherwise announce his presence before entering the home,

and did not possess a warrant permitting his entry. Once inside, the officer saw the

young man in the living room talking with the home’s occupants. Unaware that the

suspect happened to be the occupants’ grandson, the officer drew his firearm, pointed

it at the youth, and placed the youth in custody. The other fleeing youth later entered

the room and was also taken into custody. Both young men were taken to the police

station where they were ultimately charged with possession of alcohol by a person

under the legal age, and with interference with official acts. 

Later, the home’s owner and the grandfather of the young men, Frances Dewes,

filed this civil rights action against the officer and the City of Bloomfield. Dewes

asserted that the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive and

unreasonable force against him. Dewes also claimed the City had established,

maintained, and enforced official municipal policies or practices of using

unreasonable or excessive force, and had failed to train and supervise its officers

properly. The City moved for summary judgment on Dewes’s § 1983 claim. After

dismissing the complaint against the officer for failure to serve notice, the district

court*

 granted summary judgment to the City. The court noted the undisputed facts

showed the officer did not use any force, much less excessive force, toward Dewes

while placing his grandson in custody. The district court declined to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Dewes’s state law claims. 

On appeal, Dewes first contends the district court committed error in its

excessive force analysis and in finding the officer never used deadly force against

Dewes. To survive the City’s summary judgment motion on his excessive force
-3-

claim, Dewes had to present enough proof to permit a reasonable jury to find the

degree of force the officer used against Dewes was objectively unreasonable. See

Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, 365 F.3d 590, 597 (8th Cir. 2004). Dewes failed to

make this showing. In his deposition testimony, Dewes admitted the officer did not

direct any force toward him. Indeed, in his complaint, Dewes alleged the officer

proceeded into his living room “with a gun drawn and pointed at [the suspect].” 

Dewes also asserts the district court misapplied municipal liability law.

Because the officer did not commit a constitutional tort against Dewes, the City

cannot be held liable under § 1983. Kuha, 365 F.3d 590, 603 (8th Cir. 2003). Even

if a constitutional violation occurred, Dewes did not present enough evidence to raise

a material issue of fact about whether the officer acted under an official policy or

widespread custom or practice of the City. Radloff v. City of Oelwein, 380 F.3d 344,

348 (8th Cir. 2004). 

We thus affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City.

______________________________