# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 32 29

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Nor ris Perry

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

W oo dr uf f Co un ty Sheri ff Dep art m en t, By and th ro ug h S ta cy Bark er an d F red di e Hud so n; Sta cy

Bark er; Fred di e Hud so n, In His Ind iv id ua l an d Off ic ia l Ca pa ci ty;
McC ro y Po li ce Dep art m en t; James R. Ja ck so n; McC ro y , Cit y of; Doyle Fo wler

, McC ro y Mayor, In His Ind iv id ua l an d Off ic ia l Ca pa ci ty; Ch arl es Dall as , W oo dr uf f
Co un ty Jud ge , In Hi s In di vi du al an d Off ic ia l Ca pa ci ty; W oo dr uf

f Co un ty, Ark an sa s; Ro wlan d C la rk , Depu ty Sheri ff, In His Ind iv id ua l an d Off ic ia l Ca pa ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

Mar go W ol fe, Po li ce Offi cer, In Her In di vi du al an d Off ic ia l Ca pa ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

Bru ce Go ld en , She rif

f's Depu ty/Po li ce Offi cer, In di vi du al ly and in His Offic ia l Cap aci ty; Cla rk , LT, In di vi du al ly and in His /Her Offic ia l Ca pa ci ty; Jo hn Does , 1 -

5, In di vi du al ly and in th ei r Offi ci al Cap aci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Hel en a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 7 , 20 17
Fil ed : J un e 5 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re GRUENDER, MURPHY, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Nor ris Perr y su ed m

ul ti pl e de fen da nt s em

pl oyed by W oo dr uf

f C o u n ty,

Ark an sa s an d th e Ci ty of McC ro ry fo r an arre st th at oc cu rred o n A u g u st 30

, 20 09

. Perr y al le ge d ex ces si ve -fo rc e, ill eg al -a rr es t, an d ill eg al -s ea

rc h cl ai m s un de r 42 U.S.C.
§ 19 83 an d rel at ed to rt cl ai m s un de r Ark an sa s la w. The di st ric t c o u r t de ni ed 1

su m m ary jud gm en t to a nu m

be r of de fen da nt s who to ok pa rt in th e in ci de nt

, in cl ud in g
Ci ty of McC ro ry Po l i c e Offi cer Mar go W ol fe. W ol fe ap pe al ed

, cl ai m in g th at th e
di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n it co nc lu de d th at sh e was no t en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. Fo r th e rea so ns di sc us se d b el ow, we af fir m

.

I. BACK GROUND

On th e ni gh t of Aug us t 30

, 20 09

, Perr y dr ov e to hi s lo cal carwa sh to cl ean hi s

tru ck

. W ol fe, who was of f-d ut y an d at he r ap art m en t, sa w Perr y fro m he r ba ck st ep s

a nd cal le d di sp at ch to in ve st ig at e, as sh e be li ev ed th at he was act in g su sp ic io u s l y.

Wo o d r u f f Co un ty Dep ut y Sh eri ff Bru ce Gol de n res po nd ed , a rri ve d at th e carwa sh

,

an d par ke d be hi nd Perr y ’s tru ck

. Perr y ap pr oa ch ed Gol de n and as ke d if everyth in g

was al rig ht

. W he n Gol de n res po nd ed affi rm at iv el y , Perr y ret ur ne d to cl ean in g hi s

tru ck

. As Perry pr ep ared to le av e th e carwa sh

, Gol de n app ro ach ed an d ask ed Perr y

fo r hi s li cen se an d reg is tra ti on

. Perr y ob li ge d wit ho ut in ci de nt

, an d Gol de n ch eck ed

fo r ou ts ta nd in g warra nt s. Afte r fin di ng n o ou ts ta nd in g warra nt s, Gol de n ret ur ne d

Perr y ’s do cu m en ts bu t di r e ct ed hi m to wait to ta lk wit h an ot he r of fic er. Perr y

qu es ti on ed Gol de n ab ou t why an ot he r of fic er ne ed ed to ta lk to hi m bu t co m pl ie d wit h

th e o rd er.

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-Sh or tl y th erea fte r, Ci ty o f M c Cro ry Po li ce Lieu te na nt Bo ok er Pen ni ng to n,

W oo dr uf f Co un ty Dep ut y Sh eri ff Ro wlan d Cl ark

, an d W ol fe arri ve d on sc en e. Cl ark

as ke d Gol de n if he had se arch ed Perr y fo r weap on s. Go ld en co nd uc te d a pa t-d own

an d reco ve red a m

ul ti -to ol kn ife in Perr y ’s po ss es si on

. Cl ark th en ap pr oa ch ed Perr y

an d in st ru ct ed h i m to “ sp read eag le ” fo r an ot he r pa t-d own

. Perr y co m pl ie d bu t

qu es ti on ed th e jus ti fic at io n fo r th e se a r c h

. P e r ry te st ifi ed th at he di d no t act

ag gr es si ve ly to ward s Cl ark o r th reat en Cl ark ’s sa fet y

. Perr y al so te st ifi ed th at

, wit ho ut an y pr ovoc at ion

, Cl ark st ep pe d be hi nd Perr y , wrap pe d hi s arm aro un d Perr y ’s

ne ck

, li fte d Perr y of

f hi s feet

, an d kn oc ke d Perr y to th e gr ou nd

, face fir st

. W ol fe was

twen ty fee t away, an d sh e te st ifi ed th at sh e sa w P erry t ur n i n a n a gg res si ve m an ne r

as if he were ab ou t to swi ng at Cl ark

. A f t e r w i t n e s s i ng Cl ark ta ke Perr y to th e

gr ou nd , s he ran ov er, se cu r e d P e r r y’s rig ht ha nd , a nd fo rced he r kn ee in to hi s ba ck

to su bd ue hi m

. Gol de n pr oc eed ed to ha nd cu ff Perr y

. Pen ni ng to n, who was W ol fe’s

su pe rio r, to ld th e ot he r of

fic ers th at Perr y was no t a th reat

, bu t whe n Pen ni ng to n tri ed

to rem ov e th e h an dc uf

fs , Cla rk st op pe d h im

an d s ai d t ha t he ha d no au th or it y to do

so be cau se “ th is [ was ] a co un ty th in g no w.” Perr y te st ifi ed th at th ro ug ho ut th e

ep is od e, he cri ed ou t fo r he lp an d as ke d of fic ers why h e was be in g arre st ed bu t di d

no t th reat en th e of

fic ers ’ sa fet y or res is t arre st

. Perr y was th en ch arg ed wit h a nu m be r

of cri m es in cl ud in g po ss es si ng a weap on , res is ti ng arre st

, an d di so rd erl y co nd uc t. All

ch arg es ev en tu al ly w ere d is m is se d.

As a res ul t of th e in ci de nt

, Perr y su ff e r e d l a cera te d te nd on s in hi s kn ees , a
bu lg ed di sc in hi s n eck , con st an t ba ck pr ob le m s, ne rv e da m ag e, an d po st -tr au m at ic

st res s di so rd er. He br ou gh t th is su it ag ai ns t W ol fe an d ot he r d e f e n d an ts

, st at in g
fed eral an d st at e la w cl ai m s. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed su m m ary jud gm en t an d

al lo wed th e m ajor it y of Perr y ’s cl ai m s to pr oc eed

. W ol fe ap pe al ed

, cl ai m in g th at th e
di st ric t co ur t er red in rul in g t ha t s he was n ot en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

-3

-II . DISCUSSI ON

Und er th e co ll at eral or de r do ct rin e, we ha ve au th or it y to he ar an in te rlo cu to ry

ap pe al of a de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. Ehl er

s v. Ci ty of

Rap id Ci ty

, 84 6 F.3 d 10 02

, 10 08 (8 th C i r

. 2 01 7)

. W e are li m it ed

, ho wev er, to rev ie win g qu es ti on s of la w, no t

fact u a l d is pu te s, an d th us , “ we rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s qu al ifi ed im m un it y
de te rm in at io n on su m

mary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g th e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to th e pl ai nt iff an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in hi s fav or .” Id

. (al te rat io ns an d q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

Qua li fie d im m

un it y pr ot ect s la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers fro m li ab il it y fo r ci vi l

da m ag es so lo ng as t he ir con du ct do es no t v io la te cle arl y est ab li sh ed co ns ti tu ti on al

or st at ut or y rig ht s of w h ic h a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own

. Har lo w v.

Fit zg er al d

, 45 7 U.S. 80 0, 81 8 (1 98 2 )

. A n o f fic er lo se s th e sh ie ld of qu al ifi ed

im m u n i t y if (1 ) th e fact s al le ge d, ta ke n in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pl ai nt iff

, sh ow th e of

fic er’s co nd uc t vi ol at ed a co ns ti t u t i o n al or st at ut or y rig ht ; an d (2 ) th at rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e pu rp or te d m is co nd uc t. Sa uc ie r v. Ka tz

, 53 3 U.S. 19 4, 20 1 (2 0 0 1 ) ; Eh l e r s , 84 6 F.3 d at 10 08

. A co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht is cl earl y es ta bl is he d whe n th e co nt ou rs of th e rig ht are “ su ffi ci en tl y cl ear [s uc h]

th at a reas on ab le of

fic ia l wou ld un de rs ta nd th at wha t he is do in g vi ol at es th at rig ht .”

And er so n v. Cr ei

gh to n , 48 3 U.S. 63 5, 64 0 (1 98 7)

. W hi le “ ge ne ral st at em en ts of la w

are no t in he ren tl y in c a p a bl e of gi vi ng fai r an d cl ear warn in g to of fic ers ,” W

hi te v.

Pau ly

, 13 7 S. Ct

. 54 8, 5 5 2 ( 2 01 7) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s

cau ti on ed lo wer cou rts ag ai ns t de fin in g cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht s “ at a hi gh le ve l of

ge ne ral it y ,” se e id

. (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

A. Fourt h Am endment Vio la tio n

Fi rs t, we d e te rm in e whe th er W ol fe’s co nd uc t vi ol at ed Perr y ’s Fo ur th

Am en dm en t rig ht to be free fro m th e us e of ex ces si ve fo rce. In de te rm in in g whe th er

a pa rti cu la r us e of f

o r c e was ex ces si ve , we co ns id er whe th er it was ob jecti ve ly

-4

-reas on ab le un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces , “ rel y [in g] on th e pe rs pe ct iv e of a reas o na bl e

of fic er pr es en t at th e sc en e r a t h e r th an th e ‘20/ 20 vi si on of hi nd si gh t.’” Ca rp en te r

v. Gag e , 68 6 F.3 d 64 4, 64 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Gra ha m v. C o n n o r , 4 9 0 U .S.

38 6, 39 6 (1 98 9) ). The pr op er ap pl ic at io n of th is st an da rd “ req ui res care fu l at te nt io n

to th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces o f e a c h pa rti cu la r cas e, in cl ud in g th e se ve rit y of th e
cri m e at is su e, w h e t h e r th e su sp ect po se s an im m ed ia te th reat to th e sa fet y of th e

of fic ers or ot he rs , a nd whe th er he is act iv el y res is ti ng arre st or at te m pt in g to ev ad e

arre st by flig ht .” Gra ha m , 49 0 U.S. at 39 6.

Viewi ng th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Perr y , we co nc lu de th at th e
di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in ho ld in g th at W ol fe vi o l a t e d P e rry ’s F ou rth Am en dm en t rig ht to be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce be ca u s e he r us e of fo rce was ob jecti ve ly

un reas on ab le as a m at te r of la w. Perr y di d no t co m m it an y cri m es on th e ni gh t of
Aug us t 30

, 20 09

. W hi le Perr y qu es ti on ed th e jus ti fic at io n fo r th e pa t-d own an d hi s

s u b se qu en t arre st

, he di d no t act ag gr es si ve ly or th reat en Cl ark ’s sa fet y

. In st e a d

, Cl ark th rew Perr y to th e gr ou nd wit ho ut pr ov oc at io n, an d W ol fe v ie wed th is en ti re

in te ract io n be fo re as si st in g i n s ub du in g P erry. At n o t im e d id Perry str ug gl e, res is t

arre st

, or th reat en th e sa fet y of an y of th e of fic ers

. W ol fe’s su pe rv is or , Pen ni ng to n,

ev en at te m

pt ed to pr e v en t th e arre st an d rem ov e Perr y ’s ha nd cu ffs be cau se he

be li ev ed th a t Perr y was no t a th reat

. In si m il ar ci rcu m st an ces , we de ni ed qu al ifi ed

im m un it y to an of

fic er who as si st ed in su bd u in g an d ha nd cu ffi ng a no n- res is ti ng pl ai nt iff be cau se th e as si st in g o ffi cer “ was pr es en t fo r th e en ti re en co un te r an d s aw

th at [th e] pl ai nt iff

—wea rin g on ly a ba th ro be —p os ed no th reat to th e sa fet y of th e

of fic ers or ot he rs an d di d no t at te m pt to res is t arre st .” Smi th v. Ka ns as Ci t y Po l i ce Dep ’t

, 5 8 6 F

. 3 d 57 6, 58 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). The se fact s are an al og ou s to th e pr es en t

cas e an d de m on st rat e th at W ol fe’s act io ns res tra in in g Per r y’ s arm an d fo rci ng he r

kn ee in to hi s ba ck vi ol at ed hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig h t t o b e f r e e fro m ex ces si ve

fo rce.

W ol fe arg ue s th at sh e is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se sh e m erel y
he ard a sc uf

fle b e twee n Perr y an d Cl ark be fo re co m in g to Cl ark ’s ai d. In th es e

-5

-ci rcu m st an ces , sh e cl ai m s, it was en ti rel y reas on ab le fo r he r to fear fo r Cl ark ’s sa fet y

an d us e fo rce ag ai ns t Perr y

. Unf or tu na te ly fo r W ol fe, th e reco rd do es no t su pp or t he r

co nt en ti on

. To th e co nt rary, W ol fe te st ifi ed th at sh e wit ne ss ed th e en ti re in te ract io n

be twee n Cl ark an d Perr y

. Viewi ng th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Perr y th en

co m pe ls us to cred it Perr y ’s al le ga ti on s th at he was no t th reat en in g Cl ark ’s sa fet y or

ot he rwis e res is ti ng arre s t

. Thu s, th e reco rd de m on st rat es th at W ol fe ob se rv ed th e

en ti re en co un te r an d un de rs to od t h a t P e r ry di d no t po se a th reat to Cl ark or ot he r

of fic ers

. As a res ul t, W ol fe can no t cl ai m t h at it was reas on ab le fo r he r to res tra in

Perr y ’s arm an d f

o r c e h e r kn ee in to hi s ba ck

. Se e id

. W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at 2

W ol fe’s act io ns co ns tit

ute d a Fo ur

th A m en dm en t vio la ti on be cau se sh e joi ne d Cl ark ’s

ex ces si ve us e of fo rce ev en w h e n sh e kn ew th at Perr y di d no t co m m it a cri m e,

th reat en Cla rk ’s saf

et y , or re si st arre st

. 3

B. Clea rl y E st ab li sh ed La w

Nex t, we as se ss whe th er Perr y ’s rig ht to be free fro m th e us e of ex ces si ve fo rce

was cl earl y es ta bl is he d in Aug us t 20 09

, th e da te of th e in ci de nt

. In Smi th

, we fo un d

th at

, by 20 06

, it was cl earl y es ta bl is he d th at an as si st in g of f i c e r w h o k n ew th at a

su sp ect was no t res i st in g or th reat en in g th e of fic ers vi ol at ed th at su sp ect ’s Fo ur th

Am en dm en t rig ht s by su bd ui ng an d ha nd cu ffi ng hi m

. Se e 58 6 F.3 d at 58 2. Thu s, it

f o l l ows th at at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt he re, Perr y ’s F ou rth Am en dm en t rig ht t o b e

free fro m ex ces si ve for ce was als o c le arl y est ab li sh ed

.

W e ack no wled ge th at di ffer en t fact ua l ci rcu m st an ces co ul d le ad to a di ffer en t 2

co nc lu si on , ev en if a su sp ect were no t res is ti ng arre st or ot he rwis e act in g in a way

warra nt in g th e us e of fo rce. Se e, e.g

. , Ehl er s , 84 6 F.3 d at 10 10 (li st in g cas es whe re

an as si st in g o f

f i c e r is en ti tl ed to rel y on th e pr ob ab le cau se de te rm in at io n of an

ar r e s t i n g of

fic er). If W ol fe ha d on ly he ard a sc uf fle an d th en tu rn ed to se e Cl ark

st ru gg li ng wit h Perr y , qu al ifi ed im m un it y m ay well be ap pr op ria te

. W ol fe te st ifi ed

, ho wev er, t ha t s he was p res en t fo r an d v ie wed th e en ti re i nc id en t.

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Cl ark qu al ifi ed im m un it y , an d he di d no t ap pe al th e 3

di st ric t co ur t’s d eci si on

.

-6

-W ol fe rai se s a t w o

- fo ld ch al le ng e to ou r co nc lu si on ab ou t th e cl earl y

es ta bl is he d na tu re of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t vi ol at io n. Sh e fir st cl ai ms th at un de r

W hi te v. Pau ly

, 13 7 S. Ct

. 54 8 (2 01 7)

, it was no t cl earl y es ta bl is he d th at sh e was

pr oh ib it ed fro m rel y in g on Cl ark ’s jud gme n t s a b o u t th e ne ed to us e fo rce ag ai ns t

Perr y

. Nex t, sh e as se rts th at Perr y ’s cl ai m fo un de rs on Ch amb er s v. Pen ny co ok

, 64 1

F.3 d 89 8 (8 th Ci r . 2 01 1) , b ecau se Perr y on ly al le ge d de min imi s in juri es an d un de r

Pen ny co ok

, su ch in

juri es co ul d no t se rv e as th e ba si s fo r ex ces si ve -fo rce cl ai m s un ti l

20 11 . Bot h h er ar gu m en ts are u na va il in g.

In W hi te

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t hel d th at “ [c]lea rly est ab li sh ed fed eral law d oe s

no t pr oh ib it a reas on ab le of fic er who arri ve s la te to an on go in g po li ce act io n

. . . fro m

as su m in g th at pr op er pr oc ed ur es

. . . ha ve al read y be en fo ll owe d. No se tt le d Fo ur th

Am en dm en t p rin ci pl e req ui res th at off ic er t o s eco nd -g ue ss th e ear li er st ep s al read y

ta ke n b y hi s o r he r fel lo w off

ic ers .” 13 7 S . Ct. at 55 2. W hi te is in ap pl ic ab le to ou r

cas e be cau se it ad dr es se s a who ll y di ffer en t se t of fact s. As no te d ab ov e, W ol fe was

on th e sc en e at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt an d te s t i f i e d t ha t sh e vi ewed th e en ti re

in te ract io n be twee n Perr y an d Cl ark

. As a res ul t, Smi th go ve rn s th is cas e, an d Perr y ’s

Fo ur th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o b e fre e fro m ex ces si ve for ce was cle arl y est ab li sh ed

.

W ol fe res po nd s th at ev en if sh e us ed ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t Perr y , he su ffer ed

on ly de min imi s in

juri es as a res ul t of he r co nd uc t. In Pen ny co ok

, de ci de d in 20 11

,

we he ld fo r th e fir st ti m e “ th at a ci ti zen m ay pr ov e an un reas on ab le se iz ur e ba se d on

an ex ces si ve us e of fo rce wit ho ut ne ces sa ril y sh owi ng m or e th an de min imi s in jury.”

64 1 F.3 d at 90 1. W hi le it is tru e th at a de min imi s in jury co ul d no t se rv e as th e ba si s

fo r an ex ces si ve -fo rce cl ai m in Aug us t 20 09

, th e reco rd in di cat es th at Perr y su ffer ed

m or e th an de min imi s in

juri es su ch th at Pen ny co ok do es no t ap pl y

.

Dur in g hi s de po si ti on te st im on y , Perr y no te d th at as a res ul t of th e in ci de nt

, he

s uf fere d la cera te d te nd on s in hi s kn ee, a bu lg ed di sc in th e ne ck

, co ns ta nt b a c k

pr ob le m s, ne rv e da m ag e, an d po st -tr au m at ic st res s di so rd er. Perr y al so te st ifi ed th at

whe n W ol fe res tra in ed hi m a n d p l a c e d h er kn ee in th e m id dl e of hi s ba ck , h e fel t a

-7

-sh arp pa in in hi s ba ck an d rib s. In a su bs eq ue nt affi da vi t, Perr y fu rth er ex pl ai ne d th at

hi s in juri es were c o l le ct iv el y cau se d by “ th e fo rced ta ke -d own by Ro wlan d Cl ark

,

as si st ed by Ma rg o W ol fe an d Bru ce Go ld en .” W ol fe as se rts , ho wev er, t ha t Perr y ’s

affi da vi t di rect ly co nt rad ic ts hi s earl ie r de po si ti on te st im on y be cau se hi s de po si ti on

te st im on y su gg es ts th at W ol fe on ly cau se d de min imi s in juri es whi le hi s affi da vi t

al le ge s m or e se rio us in juri es

. The refo re, W ol fe co nt en ds t h e la te r affi da vi t

co ns ti tu te s a fo rb id de n at t e mpt to m an uf act ur e a “ sh am is su e of fact .” Her ri ng v.

Ca n. Li fe Ass ur an ce Co

. , 2 07 F.3 d 10 26 , 1 03 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) ( qu ot at io n om it te d)

. W e d is ag ree.

Viewi ng th e reco rd in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Perr y su gg es ts th at th e affi da vi t

was a cl ari fic at io n or ex pl an at io n of th e pr io r te st im on y an d no t a di rect co nt rad ic ti on

. Se e id

. at 10 30 -3 1 (“ [T]here are na rro w ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch a su bs eq ue nt affi da vi t

is ap pr op ria te

, su ch as to ex pl ai n cert ai n as pe ct s of th e de po si ti on te st im on y or whe re

th e pr io r te st im on y refl ect s co nf us io n on th e pa rt of th e wit ne ss .” (q uo ta ti on

om it te d) ). Mo re im

po rta nt ly, ho wev er, in so far as th ere is an y in co ns is te nc y be twee n

Per r y’ s de po si ti on te st im on y an d hi s la te r affi da vi t, ou r pr eced en ts di ct at e th at th is

co ns ti tu te s a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact

. Id

. at 10 31 (ci ti ng Ki m v. In ge rs ol l Ran d

C o

. , 9 2 1 F.2 d 19 7, 19 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (ap pa ren t di sc rep an cy in pl ai nt iff ’s tri a l

te st im on y an d hi s ea rli er d ep os it io n t es ti m on y crea te d a cred ib il it y

qu es ti on fo r th e jury)). As a res ul t, vi ewin g th e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Perr y , th e in juri es
he su ffer ed were m or e se rio us th an de min imi s on es

. Acco rd in gl y , Pen ny co ok do es

no t co nt ro l th is cas e, an d we co nc lu de th at Perr y ’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht to be free

fro m ex ces si ve fo rce was cl earl y es ta bl is he d in Aug us t 20 09 su ch th at W ol fe was no t

en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

.

II I. CONCLUS IO N

W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of W ol fe’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-