## 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

- 3769 M ARY S ALLENGER, as the A d m inistrator of th e E state of A NDR EW B. S ALLENGER, de c e a s e d, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. C ITY OF S PRI NGFIE LD , I LLINO IS, et al., 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 . 3:03- cv-03093

—Jean ne E . Sc ott, Judge .
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 9, 2010

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 17, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . An dr e w S a l l e ng e r, 3 5 , s uffer ed f r o m b i po l ardi so r dera nd s ch i zo phr en i a, a nd i n the ear l y- m or ni ng hour s o n A pri l 30 , 20 02, he ex peri enced a psyc hoti c epi sode w hi l e s tay i ng athi s m other’ s ho use i n Sp ring fi el d, I l l i no i s. A f ami l y mem be r c al l ed 91 1 an d r epo r te d tha t he was s cr ea m i nga nd “ r unning ar o und the2 N o. 08

- 3769 h ou se n ak ed ” in an a git at ed an d u n c on tr olla b le sta te. Three S pri ngfi el d pol i ce o ffi cer s r espon d ed to th e scen e, an d a viol en t stru ggle ensu ed

. Th e officers ev en tu al l y s ubdu ed S al l en g era nd r es tr aine d hi m i n a “hobbl e”

— e s s e nt i a l l y a c o r d tha t i s l o o pe d a r o un d a suspect’ s l owe r leg s a nd then connect ed to a str ap that i s a tta ched to hand cuff s. A few m i nutes a fterhe was hobbl ed, Sa ll engerst opped brea thi ng. The o ffi cer s r em ove d the ho b bl e, at tem pted CP R, and cal l ed f oran am bul ance, but Sal l engerneve r re gained consci ousness. H e w as lat er p ro n ou n c ed d ea d atth e h os p ita l. Sal l enger ’ s e sta te bro ught se ver alst at e a nd federa l cl ai m s a gainst the thr ee offi cer s a nd the City of S pri ngfi eld, but on ly tw o are r e lev an t on th is app eal: ( 1) a cl ai m a g ains t th e o ffi ce r s f o r ina dequa te l y resp ondi ng to S a l l e n g e r ’ s me d i c a l n e e d s d u r i n g th e c o u r s e o ft he a r r e s t, i n v i o l a ti o n o fthe F o ur th Am e nd men ta nd ma de acti onabl e under 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983; and ( 2) a cl ai m ag ai nst th e C ity un d er M o nell v . D epa rtm ent o f So cia l Serv ices , 43 6 U .S. 65 8 (1 97 8), for failu re to tr a in th e o ffice rs in how to use h obb les. Th e d istri ct cou rt ente red sum m ary j udg m en t f o r the de fen dan ts o n b o thc l ai m s. The E state c o nt en ds th i s was e r r o r . I t was no t. The r ec o rd i s cl earthatthe officers beg an CPR and cal l ed param edi cs a s s oo n as they re al i zed S al l enger w as not breat hin g, an d this satis fi es th e Fourth A m en d m en t’s re aso nabl eness st andard. A s forthe M onell c laim aga i nst the Ci ty, i t i s l i nked to the Estate ’ s excessi vef o r ce claim ag ains t th e o ffi ce r s f o r i m pr o perus e o fthe hobbl e. That cl ai m was tr i ed to a j ury afte r quali fi ed i m m unity was deni ed, an d a no- l i abi l i ty ver dictwasN o. 08

- 3769 3

re nd er ed f orthe offi cer s. Be c au se the o ffi cer s di d not vi ol ate Sal l enger ’ s Four th A m endm ent ri ghts by th e w ay i n w hi ch they u se d t he hobb l e, the Cityi tse l fcannotbe li able un d er M onell for fa ilu re t o p r o p er ly tr ain th em in the use o fthe devi ce.

I . B a c kg r o und Thi s ca se i s be f o re th is co ur t f o r a s ec o nd t i m e. Our firs t d ec isio n, Sa lle n g er v. O a k es , 473 F.3d 731 ( 7th Cir. 2007 ) , affi rm ed the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fthe offi cer s’ m o ti o n f o r su m m ar y j udg m en t ba se d o n qua l i fi ed i m m uni ty. Tha t dec i si o n c o nt ains a ful l f ac tu ala cc o unto fthe case ; we w i l l r evi ew her e o n ly those f acts per ti nent t o thi s a pp eal

. On A pri l 30 , 20 02, A n d re w S al l engerwas s t a y i n g wi t h h i s mo th e r, Ma r y S a l l e n g e r, a th e r h o me i n Springfi el d. K i m N ol an, Sal l enger ’ s s i ste r, was al so st ay i nga t th e hom e, to g ethe r wi thhe r f o urc hi l dr en . Sal len gerwas a s chi zophre ni c and al so suffer ed f ro m bi po l a r ma ni c de pr e s s i o n, a nd h e e xp e r i e nc e d a psychoti c epi sode i n the ear l y- m or ni ng hours on A pri l 30
. N ola n cal l ed 911 at1: 49 a. m . and to l d the di spatcher th athe r b r o th erha d wok en ev eryon e up s cr ea m i nga nd “br eak i ng al l k i nd s o fstuff

. ” S he sa i d he w as “ver y psy c h o t i c ” a n d w as “ru n n in g a ro u n d th e h ou se n ak ed in f ro nt o fthe ki ds and ever ythi ng. ” S he al so to ld t he di spatchertha t res pond i ng o ffi cer s would “ne ed a l ot of b ac ku p be c au se h e is ou t t h er e b ad a n d h e’s ve ry st ro n g.” Three Springfi el d po li ce o ffi cer s were dispat ched to the s cene. S er g ea ntJ ames Zi m m er m an, O ffi ce r Br i anOa k es , a nd Offi ce r J as o n Ol i ve r ar r i ve d sh o r tly afte r 2 a. m . , a nd4 N o. 08

- 3769 N o l anqui ck l y i nf o r m ed the m o fS al l en g er ’ s co ndi ti o n. T h e o ffi c e r s e n t e r e d th e h o u s e a n d f o u n d S a l l e n g er i n a bedro om , i n the physi caland m entalst ate N ol an had des crib ed. The o ffi ce r s appr o ac he d t o t r y t o s ubdu e and arr esthi m , and a v i ol ent s tr uggl e t oo k pla ce. Sal l engerwas, as N ol an had sugg est ed, ve ryst ro ng; at 6 fee t ta l l a nd 2 62 p o unds , he was a l so a v ery l ar g e m an . The o ffi ce r s us ed peppe r s pr ay, phy si ca l b l o ws, a nd p ressu re-point t e ch niq ue s in respo ns e to Sall en ger’s str enuous re si sta nce. The y e ve n tu ally m an age d to ha ndcu ffS al l en g er, a nd the n r es tr ained hi m i n the h o b b l e . A ft e r S a l l e n g e r w a s h o b b l e d , S e r g e a n tZ i mm er m a n em erged from the be d room to w ash pep p ersp r ayr es i due fr o m hi s ey es . Acco r di ngt o Nol an ’s ver si on of e vents , a few m i nutes l ate r she he ar d her b r o th e r s c r e a m t hr e e t i me s . S h e w e n ti n t o th e b e d r o o m, saw that he was not bre athi ng, and ye l l ed, “y ou k i l l ed m y b ro ther

. ” T h e o ffi cer s’ ve rs i on i s a l i ttl e di ffer ent, bu t a l l pa r ti es a g r ee tha t wi th i n mi nut es o fb eing hob ble d , Sa ll en ger stop p ed breath ing. W he n th e officers r ea l i ze d thi s, the y r emov ed th e ho bb l e, s ta r te d CPR, a nd cal l ed f orpara m edi cs. A t the tim e o f th e incide nt, the C ity perm itted officers t o u s e h o b b l e s i n case s i n whi c h a s us pe c ti n c us t o dy i s d i s p l a y i ngo r h a s i n d i c a t e d s i g n s o fa h o s t i l e a n d c o mbati ve nature
. But the C ity did notspeci fi cal l y t ra i n i ts offi cer s in how to use them

. The hobbl e use d on Sal l en ge r w as not i ssued bythe City ; r ather, Offi cer Oakes pu rchas ed i t fro m a re tai l websi te. Oakes had re ad the instr ucti ons that c am e w i th the hobbl e a nd had seen o thero ffi cer s use them

. Zi m m er m an te sti fi ed thatN o. 08

- 3769 5 h e w as aw ar e t h at res tr ain in g a su sp ec t in a h ob b le coul d ca u se posi ti onalas phyxiat i on i fthe suspect w as not turned o n hi s s i de. The m ai n poi nt o fc onte nti on i n thi s a pp eali s not the o ffi c e r s ’ u s e o fthe h o b b l e ( mor e o n tha ti n a mom en t) b u t w h et h er th e o ffice rs res p on d ed ap p ro p ria te ly once they re al i zed thatS al l engerwas not bre athi ng. Springfi el d Pol i ce Li eute nant M ar k Bri dges a rr i ved on th e sc en e wi th i n mi nut es o fthe hobb l i ng, a nd the th r ee o ffi ce r s te st i fi ed that i t was a t th i s po i nt

—j ust a fter Br i dg e s a r r i ved

— that they re al i zed S al l engerwas not breat hin g. A llf o u r officers

— Zim m erm an, Oa kes, Oli ver, and Bri dges

— tes ti fi ed that they i m m edi ate l y r em ove d th e h obbl e, beg an CPR, and sum m oned an a m bul ance. N ol an’ s t est i m ony al so supp or ts thi s a ccount. The Es ta te c o nt en ds, ho wev er, tha t th er e was a s ev en m i nute l ag between the ti m e the o ffi cer s r ealized Sal l engerwas unconsci ous a nd t h e t i m e they b ega n to admi ni st ermedi ca l a i d. As s uppo rt f o r thi s co nt en ti o n, the Esta te re l i es on a tr anscr i pt fro m the re cor ding of the c al l s m ade on the pol i ce r adio duri ng the co urse o f th i s i n c i d e n t
. T h e t r a n s c r i p tr e fl e c t s th a ta t 2 : 1 5 a . m. a r adio cal l was m ad e fro m an uni denti fi ed offi cer w ho s ai d, “w hi te m al e, l ate 30 ’ s [ si c] , unconsciou s, unrespo ns i ve . ” I t al so r efl ec ts a r adi o c al l from Li eu te na nt B r i d g e s r ep or tin g, “I’m ou t a t t h e s c en e.” T h is c all is l ogg ed at 2: 22 a. m . T he Estat e infe rs fro m the ti m i ng o f these r adio cal l s that the o ffi cer s on t h e scene re al i zed S a l l e n g e r w a s u n c o n s c i o u s a t2 : 1 5 a . m.

— seve n m i nutes befo reLi eutenant Bri dges a rr i ved

—but di d nothi ng.6 N o. 08

- 3769 Lie utenant Br i dges t est i fi ed, however, thati t would be wr o n g t o e q u a t e th e l o g g e d t i me o f h i s r a d i o c a l l t o t he actu al m om en t he arrived at the sc en e . E ven ts w ere c h ao tic an d m ov in g ra p id ly, an d w h en h e a rriv ed , his at te nt i o n was f o cus ed o n a ss i st i ngthe o ffi ce r s atthe sc en e ; t h e t im e o f h is ra d io c all re flec ts on ly th e p oin t in ti m e a t which he p au se d to cal l i n hi s a rr i valto the dispatcher

. The cal l l og al so re fl ects thatan a m bul ance was su m m o ne d a t 2: 23 a . m . Pa r amedi cs a r r i ve d a t 2: 29 a . m . , b ut w er e unabl e t o re susc itat e S al l enger . H e was tr anspor ted to the hosp ital, w he re he sp en t 24 ho u r s on li fe sup p ort and w as pronounced dead the next day, M ay 1, 20 02. The Estate file d thi s a cti on a gainst the Ci ty of S pr i ng fi el d a nd the o ffi ce r s al l eg i ngfede r alc o ns tituti onalvi ol ati ons and seve ra l st at e-l aw cl ai m s. A s i s r el eva nthe r e, the di st r i ctc o ur t en te r ed su m m ar y j udg m en t on t w o ofthe federa l cl ai m s: ( 1) a § 1 983 cl ai m ag ai nst th e o ffi ce r s f o r f ai l i ngt o a dequa te l y resp ond t o the m edi calneeds ofa pri sone r, i n vi olat ion ofthe Four th A m endm ent; and ( 2) a M onell cl ai m ag ai nst th e C ity f or f ai l ure to tr ai n i ts offi cer s in the use of t h e hobbl e. N ot dir ectly a t issue on thi s a pp ealbut re l evantnonethel ess i s th e Est at e’ s ex ce ss i v e - f o r c e c l ai m a g ai ns t th e o ffi ce r s, whi chf o cused p ri m ar i l y o n the i r us e o fthe hobbl e. The d ist ric t co urt denie d the o ffi cer s’ m oti on f or su m m ary j ud gm en t on th at claim , find ing the y w ere not enti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m u n ity. The o ffi cer s a pp eal ed f ro m thi s i nter l ocuto ry or der denyi ng qual i fi ed i m m unity, an d w e u p h eld t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isio n . See Sa lleng er, 473 F. 3d at 742. Th at cl ai m ( am ong othe rs ) was then t ri ed to a j ury, and Se rg eant Z i m m er m an and Offi cerOakesN o. 08

- 3769 7

wer e f o und n o t l i ab l e. T he jury was unabl e to r ea cha verd ict on th e claim against O fficer Oliver. Bu t afte r a re tr i al, he t oo w as f ound not l i abl e. The Estat e doe s no t c on te st th e jur y v er d ict s o n ap p ea l ; in st ea d , i t c h allenges on ly t h e d istri ct cou rt’s entry of sum m ary j ud gm en t on th e m ed ical- care claim against th e officers and the M onell cl ai m ag ai nst the Ci ty.

I I . Discussi on W e review a district cou rt’s grant of sum m ary j u d gm en t d e n ov o a n d v iew all fac ts an d rea so n ab le in f e r e n c e s in fa vo r of t h e n on m ov in g p ar ty
. K ing v. E. St
. Louis S ch. D i s t
. 18 9 , 496 F.3d 812 , 816 (7th C ir. 2007). Sum m ar y j ud gm ent i s a pp ro pri ate “i fthe ple ading s, th e di sc o very an d di sc l o su r e m at er i al s o n fi l e, a nd a ny af f i dav i t s s h o w th a tth e r e i s n o g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o a ny m at er i alf ac t an d tha t th e m o va nti s en titl ed t o j udg m en t as a m att ero fl aw . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56 ( c) ( 2)
. I n r ev iewi ng the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o gr ant s um m ar y j u d gm ent, we “ co ns i dero nl y tho se matt er s t ha t wer e be f o r e th e di strict cou r t when i t en te r ed th e j udg m en t, ” no t th e ev id en c e o ffer ed lat e r a t t ria l. H il debrandt v. Il l. D ep’t o f Na tura l R es. , 3 47 F
. 3d 1014, 10 24 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( quotatio n m ar ks om itt ed ).

A . T h e O ffice rs’ A lleg ed F ailu re to P rov id e M ed ic al C are The Estate cl ai m ed that Offi cer s Zim m er m an, Oa kes, and Oli verf ai l ed to adequatel y r espond wh en S al l enger s t o pp e d b r e a thinga ft e r b e i ngh o b b l e d

. T h e F o u r thA me nd

-8 N o. 08

- 3769

m en t’ s o bj ec ti ve r ea so na ble ne ss s ta nda r d a ppl i es ; the Estate ’ s cl ai m per tai ns to the m edi calneeds ofa pe rs on und erar re st w ho has notye t had a j ud i ci aldeter m i natio n of p ro b ab le c au se . Willia m s v . R o d rigu ez , 50 9 F
. 3d 39 2, 40 3 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); s e eal s o S i de s v. Ci ty of Cham paign , 49 6 F
. 3 d 8 2 0 , 8 2 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ T h e g o v e r n i ng stan d ard at the tim e of arrest [form ed ical- care c laim s] is th e F ou rt h A m en d m en t’s ba n on u n re as on ab le se izu re s.” ); Lopez v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 464 F .3d 71 1, 71 8- 19 (7th C ir
. 2006). G en erall y sp eaking, f ou r cri teria are exam i ned to deter m i ne w hether offi cer s re sponde d reaso nabl y to a det aine e’ s ne ed f o r m edi ca l ca r e: ( 1) the o ffi ce r ’ s no ti ce o fthe de ta i ne e’ s ne ed for m edi ca l a tt en ti on; ( 2) the ser i ousness o fthe need; ( 3) the nature o r scop e of th e requ ired treatm en t; a n d ( 4) any cou nt erva ilin g p olic e in te re st s, e.g ., th e ne ed to pr even t the destr ucti on o fev i dence, o r othe r si m i l arl aw -en f or cem en t in te re st
. Wi l l i a ms , 50 9 F
. 3d at 403. I t i s undi spu te d th atS al l en g ers to pped br ea th i ng w ith in a few m in u te s o f be i n g h ob b led ; th e fo c u s h er e is on th e re aso nabl eness o fthe offi cer s’ r esponse o nce they r ea l i ze d he was unc o ns ci o us . The Es ta te a r g ue s th atthe re cor d supp or ts an i nfe re nc e of a s eve n-m i nute g ap between the ti m e the o ffi cer s r ealized S al l engerwas uncons c i ous a nd the ti m e they b ega n to adm i ni ste r CPR a nd su m m o n par amedi cs . Thi s se ve n- m i nut e l ag, the Estate co ntends, was unreas onabl y l ong gi ven the l i fet h r e a t e n i n gn a t u r e o fS a l l e n g e r ’ s m e d i c a l n e e d

. A ts u mm ar y j ud gm ent we draw al l i nfe re nces f ro m the evi dence i n the Estate ’ s f avo r, but th os e infer ences m ust be bo th re as on ab le a n d find su p p or t in th e re c or d

. Se eS ingerv. R aem is ch , 593 F.3d 529 , 533 (7th C ir. 2010). T he recordN o. 08

- 3769 9 do es no t r ea so nabl y s uppo r t th e infer en ce tha t th e o ffi c e r s wa i t e d s e v e n mi nu t e s b e f o r e r e nd e r i nga i d. As we ha ve no te d, the E st at e’ s ar g um en t r es ts o n the ti m i ngo ft wo c al l s f r o m the s ce ne tha t appe ari n the tr anscr i pt ofthe pol i ce- ra dio ta pe r eco rdi ng . A s these eve nts were r api dly unfo l ding, an uni denti fi ed offi cer ra dio ed the f ol l owing i nfo rm ati on t o the di spatcherat 2: 15 a. m . : “[ w ] hi te m al e, l ate 30 ’ s [ si c] , unconsci ous, unresponsi ve. ” At 2: 22 a. m . L i eutenant Bri dges r adio ed that he was “o ut atthe scene. ” The Estate sugg estthat th ese tw o call s p erm its an inferenc e tha t the officers w ai ted se ven m in u tes befor e be gi nning to adm i ni ste r m edi calcar e. W e di sag re e. W ith ou t s om ethi ng m or e, thes e tw o cal l s do not supp or t a r eas onabl e infe re nce that the o ffi c er s d i d abso

lu te ly n ot h in g for se ve n m in u te s a fte r re aliz in g Sa ll en g erwas no t br ea th i ng . And the r e i s no th i ngi n the record to su p p ly th e “som eth ing m ore” th at is neces sary to m ake such a n in ference re aso nabl e. To the co ntra ry, al l thr ee offi cer s andS al l enger ’ s s i ste r, Kim N ol an

— th e pr im ary witness f orthe Estate

— te st ified co n sis te n tly th ata s so o n a s th e o ff i ce r s r ea l i ze d S al l en g erwas unc o ns c i o u s , th e y r e m o v e d th e h o b b l e , b e g a n C P R, a n d s u mm on ed an am b u lan c e. T h i s t oo k p lac e im m ed iat ely afte r Li eu te na ntBr i dge s ar r i ve d a t th e sc en e. Li eu ten an t Bri dges c or robor ate d thi s a ccount. H e a l so tes ti fi ed that i t woul d b e i nc o r r ect to int er pr etthe c al l l o ga s pi npoi nti ng the pre ci se ti m e o fhi s a rriva l; i t e stabl i shed onl y that a t 2 : 22 a. m . he r adio ed the dispat cherto re portthathe ha d arr i ved. The l og a lso r efl ects that p aram edi cs were sum m oned j ust o ne m i nute l ate r, at10 N o. 08

- 3769 2: 23 a . m . Acco r di ng l y, a l l the w itne ss es a g r ee tha t th e o ffi c e r s a d mi n i s t e r e d me d i c a l c a r e v e r y s o o n, i fn o t i mmed i a t e l y, a ft e r r e a l i z i ngtha tS a l l e ng e r wa s n ot b re at h in g; th e c all log is in su fficie n t t o u n d er m in e t h is tes ti m oni alunani m i ty. The Fo urth Am endm ent r equi re s r eas onabl eness , not i mm e di a c y . Ev e r y o ne a g r e e s tha tthe o ff i cer s e nd ur e d a te ns e and d an g er o us phy si ca l o r dea l t o s ubdu e an d re st ra in Sa llen ge r, a ve ry lar ge m an w h o w as ac tiv ely p sych otic. Ev en ts un fol d ed rapid ly: Th e officers arrived at the ho m e j ust a fter2 a. m . , a vi ol ent s tr u gg le en su ed, S al l en g erw as b r o ug htunde r c o nt r o l a nd s t o pp e d b r e a th i n gs o me min u t e s l a t e r, a n d a t2 : 2 3 a . m. param edi cs were sum m oned . O n this r eco rd, the dist ri ct cour t was r i ght t o concl ud e that the ev i dence d oe s no t supp or t the Estat e’ s cl ai m thatth e offi cer s’ r esponse to Sal l enger ’ s m edi calneeds w as unreas onabl e. A ccor dingl y, sum m ar y j ud gm ent was prop er l y e nter ed i n f avo r of th e o ffi c e r s o n t h e F o u r th Ame n d me n tme d i c a l

- c a r e c l a i m.

B . M onell C laim Base d on Failu re t o Train I n C ity of Ca nton v. Harris , 4 89 U. S
. 3 78 , 3 87( 19 89 ) , the Suprem e Cour t hel d that in l i m i ted ci rcum sta nces a m uni ci pal i ty m ay be he l d l i ab l e unde r § 1 98 3 f o r c o ns t i t u tio n al v iola tio n s re su ltin g fro m a failu re to p ro p er ly t r a in p olic e o ffice rs . Th e E st at e’s failu re -to -tr ain cla im i s pre m i sed m ai nly o n the f act that the Ci ty perm i tte d i ts o ffi ce r s to us e ho bbles b utdi d no t tr ain the m i n the properuse ofthi s devi ce. But a m unici pal i ty can n ot be li able un d er M one ll whenthe r e i s no unde r l y i ngc o nsti tuti onalvi ol ati on bya m unici pal em plo yee . See, e. g.,N o. 08

- 3769 11 Kin g, 49 6 F
. 3d at 817; Jenkins v. Ba rt le tt, 48 7 F. 3d 482, 492 (7th Cir. 2007). Tw o al l ege d constituti onalvi ol ati ons m i ght ha ve form ed the ba sis f or M onell l i ab i l i ty : ( 1) the clai m th atthe o ffi ce r s us ed ex ce ss i ve f o r ce a g ains t S al l en ger, r es ul ting pr i m ar i l y fr o m the i r all eg ed m i su se o fthe hobb l e; a nd ( 2) the cl ai m tha t the o ffi cer s inadequ ate l y r esponded to his m ed ical ne ed s d u r in g t he arrest. B ut allthree offi cers wer e cl ea r ed o fany c o ns ti tu ti o na l wro ng do i ngo n the excess i ve- f or ce c l ai m f ol l owing j ury tr i al s; the Estate does not chal l enge these ve rdi cts on a pp eal

. I t i s t rue as a gen eral m atter t h a t w e review the d istri ct cou rt’s entry ofsum m ar y j ud gm en t o n the M onell cl ai m byr efer ence to the e vi denti ar y r eco rd m ade on sum m ar y j ud gm ent, n otattria l. H i l de b r andt, 3 4 7 F .3d at 1024. Bu t the j ury ver dicts a r e no w the l aw o fthi s ca se , a nd they c o nc l us i v e l y e s t ab l i s h tha tn o e xc e s s i v e f o r c e o c c ur r e d. Se eTe aguev. M ayo , 553 F. 3d 1068 , 1072 -73 (7 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9). N or can the m ed ical- care claim against th e officers p r o v id e an altern ative basis for M onell m unici pal l i ab ility

. Fo r re as on s w e ha ve alr ea d y ex p lain ed , t h e o fficer s’ co nd uct di d not v i ol ate the Four th A m endm ent. A cco r di ng l y, b ec au se the r e i s no unde r l y i ngc o ns ti tu
t io n al vi olation, the C ity cann ot be li able un d er M on e ll

. See Jenk ins , 487 F.3d at 492 ( “T he j ury foun d that M r. J en k i ns ’ c o ns ti tu ti o na l r i g ht s we re no t vi o l at ed

. . . , thus th e C ity cann ot be he ld li able for an y fai lure to train.”)

. A FFI RMED .

12- 17- 10