The H onorab le Phil ip P. Si m on, Un ited St ates D is tr ic t  J ud ge f or the N orther n D is tr ic t ofIndiana, s it ti ng b y d es ignat i on. 

## 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. 09

- 2331 C HET C Y RUS, et al., P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v. T OW N OF M UKWON AGO, 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 E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 2:07- cv-01035

—Rudo lphT. Rand a, Judge .
A RGUED O CT OB ER 26, 2009

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 10, 2010

Befo re B AU ER an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges , a nd S I MO N , D i s t r i ctJudg e .  S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Nick ol os Cyrus s uffer ed f ro m bi pol ard iso rderand schi zophre ni a a nd was known to loc al p o l ice ba se d on p as t p sy c h ot ic

—b u t n on c rim i-2 N o. 09

- 2331 nal

— epi sodes. Earl y o ne m or ni ng, afterbeing r epor ted m i ssi ng byhi s f am i l y a nd wh i l e in a del usi onalst ate , h e w an d er ed int o a p ar tia lly b u ilt n ew h om e in M uk wona g o , W i sc o ns i n, wea r i ngn oth i ngb uta b athr o be

. The pr o per tyo wnerwas present a nd c al l ed th e pol i ce. To wn o f M uk wo na g o Lie utenant Thom as Czarneck i was the fi rs t t o re spon d to the scene, and by then Cyr us w as st anding outsi de the house. The o ffi cer approached and a sk ed h i m to co m e t o the s quad carto tal k. I nstea d, Cyrus turned and bega n w alking ba ck toward the house. Czarneck i fi re d h is TaseratCyrus to sto p him fro m re enter i ng the house , and thi s s et i n m oti on a confl uence ofev ents. Cyrus f el l to th e gr ou nd afterbeing hi t with the Tas er . H e a tte m pted to sta nd up but i m m ed iat ely f el l o ve r . Cz arne ck i Ta se r ed Cyr us a se co nd t i m e. Cy r us w ent i nt o a b a r r e l r o l l a nd e nd e d up l y i ng f a c e do wn on the unfi ni shed gr aveldri veway. A se cond pol i ce o ffi cer a r r ive d , and he an d Cz arn ecki attem p ted to han d cu ff Cy r us , b utthi s wa s di ffi c ultbec a us e Cy r us ’ s h a nd s w er e tucked und er ne ath his st om ach and he di d not com plywith the o ffi cer s’ co m m ands to p roduce them for ha nd cu ffing. C zarn ecki T asered C yrus seve ral m o re ti m es

— th er e i s a di spu te abou t ho w m an y

— in an effort to f or ce c om pli ance with the ar re st. Once Cyrus w as ha ndcu ff ed, th e offi ce r s tu r ne d hi m o nt o hi s ba cka nd f ound he w as not bre athi ng. H e wa s p ro n ounced dead u p on arr iva l atth e h os p ita l. C y r u s ’ s p a r e n ts s u e d L i e u t e n a n tC z a r n e c k i, th e T o wn o fMuk wo na g o , a nd o the r de f e nd a nt s u nd e r 4 2 U. S
. C.N o. 09

- 2331 3 § 19 83 a l l eg i ngtha t Cyrus ’ s dea thwas c au se d b y the u s e o fe x c e s s i v e f o r c e i n v i o l a t i o n o fth e F o u r th A men dm ent. The distri ct c ourtgr anted the defendants’ m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, hol ding that the a m ount o ff or ce us ed to a ppr eh en d Cy r us was r eas o nabl e unde r the c i r c ums t a nc e s . Cy r us ’ s p a r e nt s a pp e a l e d. W e r e v e r s e . T h e r e a r e ma t e r i a l f a c t s i n d i s p u t e ab o ut th e ex te ntt o whi chCy r us a tt empte d t o e va de th e offi cer s a nd the actualam ou n t of for ce Czar neckiused to bring ab out hi s a rr est
. The e vid ence confl i cts, m ost i mp or tan t l y, o n ho w man y t i mes Cy r us wa s T a s e r e d. Czarneck i te sti fi ed that he deplo yed hi s Tase r fi ve or si x ti m es, a n d the autopsy r epor t desc ribes m ar ks on Cyrus’ s ba ck consi ste nt w ith r oughl y s i x Tasersho cks. Bu t the Taser ’ s i nter nal com pu ter re gi ste re d t w el ve tr i gge r pu l l s, sugg est i ng tha t m ore than si x shock s m ay have been used. On a Four th A m endm ent e xcessi ve- f or ce c laim , th es e are ke y fac tu al d isp u te s no t su sc ep tib le ofr eso l uti on o n sum m ar y j ud gm ent.

I . B a c kg r o und This case i s be f or e us on s um m ar y j ud gm ent, so w e r eco unt the ver si on o fthe f acts m ost fa vor abl e t o the no nm ovi ng par ti es

— Cyrus’ s par ents and his es tat e

— noti ng di sputes where they exi st.

A . The Eve nts ofJ uly 8 a nd 9,20 06 N i cko l os Cyrus s uffer ed f ro m bi pol ardi sor der with sym ptom s of schiz ophreni a, and he s om eti m es exhibi ted4 N o. 09

- 2331 del us i o na l b eh av i o r s th atr equir ed po l i ce i nt er ve nt i o n. This w as the case on J uly 8, 2006
. Cyrus, w ho w as th en 29 yea rs o l d and liv ed with hi s par ents i n M ukw onag o, l eft hi s ho m e o n that day, and a Ro ck County Depu ty S he r i fff ou nd hi m wande r i nga l o nga n i nt er st at e hi g hw ay i n a d elusi onalst ate
. H e was ta ken t o the Ro ck Co unty M entalH eal th Fa ci l i ty f orev al uati on a nd then re l eas ed to the custo dy of hi s m othe r, Bren d a C yr us. Cyrus a nd hi s m othe r had a di sp u te la terthatev eni ng, and C yr us r em ove d al l hi s cl othe s e xcept a bathr obe ( an d poss ibl y b oxersho rt s) befor e l eaving hom e a seco nd ti m e. Brenda Cyr us co ntacte d the Vi l l age o f M ukw onag o Pol i ce Depar tm ent, to l d the di spatcher w hat happ ened, and sai d she wanted her son tak en i nto c u s t o d y w h e n th e p o l i c e f o u n d h i m. A t abou t 7:45 a.m
. the n ex t d ay, em ergen cy d ispa tch ers r ec ei ve d a c al l fr o m Br adf o r d W i l l i ams, a r es i den t ofthe Tow n ofM ukw onag o, w ho sai d that an u nknow n m an was tr espass i ng o n hi s pro perty

— a new h om e under const ruct i o n i n th e T o wn

— and the m an w as a c ting str angel y. W i l l i am s re port ed that the t re spasse r w or e o nl y a bathro be a n d th a tWi l l i a ms h a d a v e rb a l co nfr o n t a t i o n w i th h i m. L ieuten an t Th om as C zarn ecki, th e T ow n’s on -du ty officer, w as dispat ched to the W il l i am s pro perty
. The di spatcher i nf o r m ed Cza r ne ck i tha t th e p r o per tyo wnera nd the susp ec t h ad a verbalexchange i nsi de the hom e, and that the s uspect co uld be f ound w al ki ng b ac k and f or th be

twe enthe home a nd a g arba g e dum pst ero ut si de. The dispat cheral so to l d C zar neckithatthe suspect w as l i kel y “ that cra zy b oy. ” Czar neckiundersto od thi s t o be a r efer ence to Cyrus; he was f am i l i arwith Cyr us fro mN o. 09

- 2331 5

Cz a r ne c ki c a r r i e d a TAS ER X26 ECD, a s t undev i c e tha ts e nd s 1 an el ectr ic p uls e throug h the vict im ’ s bod y causi ng d is orie ntati on, w eakness , and loss ofbalance. The d evice has two m od es of firing
. T he first m od e f i r e s t w o p ro b es tha t are co nn ected to the Tas er gun by a hi gh- vol t age , i ns ul at ed wi re. W he n the pro bes m ake c ont ac twith the body, ane l ec t ri cal c ur re nt p ass es thr ough the s ur f ac e of the body. The Tas er em i ts a curr en tas l ong as the t ri gge r i s pul l ed o r f or a m ax i m um dura tion offi ve s ec onds

. The s ec ond m ethod o fdepl oym en t is the “drive -stu n” m od e. In this m od e the operator press es the T aser to a sub je ct’ s bo d y an d then p u lls the trigg er to em it (co n tin u ed ...) pri ordel usi onalepi sod es , a nd al so knew he had been re port ed m i ssi ng the ni ght b ef or e. C za rn ec ki a rriv ed atth e s c en e a t ap p ro x im at ely 7: 50 a. m . and saw W i l l i am s s tandi ng i n hi s dri veway an d C y r u s s t a n d i n gn e a r th e h o u s e we a r i n gj u s ta b at hro be. The o ffi cerg ot o ut o fhi s s quad car, as sum ed an “o pens ta nc e” t o war d Cy r us , i den tif i ed hi m se l f, a nd as k ed Cyr us t o c o m e to war d the s tr ee t to ta l k

. Cy r us tol d Czar necki that he l i ved on the proper ty an d that hi s br othe r l i ved next doo r. Czar neckito l d C yr u s that he was on the wrong proper ty. Cyrus re sp on d ed by sa y i ngtha t Cza r ne ck i was o n pr i vate p r o per tya nd needed to l eave . A fte r th is b rie f d ialo gu e, C yr u s t u rn ed an d m ad e h is w ay backto w ar d the house ; Czar necki conte nd s that Cyrus ra n, not w al ked, i n the dir ecti on of th e h ouse. Cza rn eckithen unhols ter ed hi s Tase r and fi re d i t a t Cyr us , s tr i k i nghi m i n the back w i thb o thpr o be s an d causi ng hi m to f al l to the gr ou nd

. Czar neckiknew that 16 N o. 09

- 2331

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 a cu rren t. T he d ep loy m en t lasts as long as the trigg er is pu ll ed or f or a m a xi m u m du rat ion offive s econds. The d evice c ont ai ns ani nternal c om put er c hi p thatr ec or ds the dat e and tim e of ev er y tr ig g er p u l l

. Seege ner al ly C yrus v. Tow n of M ukw onago , No
. 0 7

- C

- 1 0 3 5 , 2 0 0 9 WL 1 1 1 04 13 , a t* 1 1 ( E. D. W is. A p r. 2 4 , 20 0 9 ). The Town ofM ukwonago a nd the Vil l age ofM ukwonago 2 ar e s epa ra t e m uni c i pal i t i es and have a pra c t i c e of p rovi di ng m utual em ergency as si st ance. T he re i s s om e c onfl i c ti n the e vi denc e aboutthe precise 3 chronology ofthe se events
. For i nst ance, i t i s unclear w hether N el s on ar ri ved be f or e or aft er Cyr us at t em pt ed t o s t and up, an d whethe r N el s on arr i ved be f or e or aft er the s ec ond Ta s er i ng. M oreover, the acc ounts dif f er as to w hether Cyru s barrel

- roll ed befor e or afterCzarnecki Tasere d him f or the s econd ti m e. back up was en r oute to the s cene; he o rder ed Cyr us

— w ho was l ying o n hi s s tom ach o n the unp aved gr aveldri vew ay as a re sul t o fbeing hi t with the Taser

— to re ma i n o n th e g r o u n d a n d p u th i s h a n d s b e h i nd h is b ac k. A fte r C za rn ec ki iss u ed th is or d er , O f f i c er E ric N el so n o fthe Vi l l ag e o fM uk wona g o Po l i ce Dep ar tment ar riv ed

. N els on got ou t o f h is s q u ad ca r, a n d atth is

2 p oin t C yr u s a tt em p te d to st an d u p bu t w ob b l e d o n h is f ee t an d fel l b ac kd ow n to the g r o und. Tho ug h h e k ne w Cyr us was una r m ed, Cz arne ck i hi t hi m w ith the Taserag ai n; afterthis se cond shock, Cyrus bar re l

- ro l l ed f our orfi ve ti m es dow n the dri veway. 3 W hen Cyrus s topp ed ro l l i ng, Czar neckiand N el son a pp r o a c he d h i m a nd co mm a nd e d t ha the sh o w hi s h a nd s f o r ha ndcu ffi ng . Cy r us was l y i ngo n h i s st o m ach o n theN o. 09

- 2331 7 d riv ew ay w ith h is h an d s u n d er n ea th h im an d d id no t i mm e di a t e l y c o mpl y, s o the o ffi c e r s a t t e mpt ed to f or cibl y r em ove hi s hands from underneath hi s bo dy. M or e s peci fi cal l y, Czar neckigrabbed Cyrus’ s l eft f or earm wi tho ne ha nd a nd k epthi s o th erha nd o n the Tas er, whi l e N el so n pl ac ed hi s lef t kne e o n Cy r us ’ s r i g ht sh o ul derbl ade to co nt r o l Cy r us ’ s m o ve m en t. Thi s m an eu v e r di d n o ts uc cee d in di s l o dg i ngCy r us ’ s h a nd s f ro m underneath hi m ; to f or ce c om pli an c e, Czarneck i deploy ed the Taser in d ri ve- stun m ode t o Cyrus’ s ba ck seve ra l ti m es ove r th e n ex t m i nute o r so. The ev i dence confl i cts ab ou t exactl y ho w m any t i m es Czarneck i used the Tas ero n Cyrus w hi l e he w as f ace dow n i n the dri vew ay. Czar neckite sti fi ed at hi s d ep osi ti on that he fi re d i t a pp ro xi m atel y s i x ti m es i n t ot al

— twi ce dur i ngthe i ni t i a l e nc o un t e r a nd f o urmo r e t i mes wh i l e Cy r us was o n the g r o un d. T he me di c a l e xa mi ne rwh o p e rf or m ed th e au to psydo cument ed m arks on Cy r us ’ s ba ckc o ns i ste ntwi th s i x Ta s e r s ho t s . Y e tthe T a s e r ’ s i nt e r na l r e a dou t o f trig ge r p u lls re c or d ed a to ta l of 12 trig ge r p u lls du ri ng the r el evantti m efra m e. The o ffi ce r s ev en tu al l y s ucc ee ded i n h an dcuffi ngCy r us an d c al l ed f oran a m bul ance on a nonem er gencybas i s. Bu t when they ro l l ed Cy ru s onto hi s ba ck, theyr eal i zed th athe was no t br ea th i ng . Cz arne ck i the n r ad ioe d the am b u lan c e an d ins tr u c te d th e p ar am ed ics to “s te p it u p .” C yr u s n ev er re g a in ed co n sc iou sn es s a n d w as form ally pronounced dead at the ho spi tall ate r that day.8 N o. 09

- 2331

In a d d itio n to the F ou rth A m en d m en t excessiv e-f or ce claim 4 aga i ns tCza rn ec ki , the c om pl ai ntal s o i nclud ed a f ai l ur e- t oint ervene c lai m agains t Offic er Nels on und er § 1983; polic y-or pra c t i c e c l ai m s ag ai nst the Town an d V i l l age ofM ukwonago und er M on e ll v . D ep ar tm en t of So cial S erv ices, 436 U.S. 658 (197 8); sup erv isory -l i ab ility claim s ag ain st the p olice ch iefs in both the Tow n and V il lage ofM ukw onago und er § 1983; cl aim s und er Tit le II ofthe Am eri cans w ith D is abili ti es Act, 42 U. S
. C. § § 1 2 1 3 1 et se q. , an d s ec t i on 50 4 o fthe Rehabi l i t at i on A ct of 19 7 3 , 2 9 U .S. C
. § 79 4; and state-law claim s f or assau lt and bat t er y, i nt en t i ona l i nfl i c t i on ofe m ot i ona l di s t re s s , an d wr o n g fu l d e a th

. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d s u mm a r y j u dg

m en t fo r the def endan ts on all cl aim s, but the Estat e has l i m i t ed i t s ar gum ents on a ppea l t o the Four th Am en dm en t e x c e s s i v e - f o r c e c l a i m. B. Dist r i ct - CourtPro ceedi ngs Ch et and Brenda Cyrus, N i cko l os’ s p ar ents, co m m enced thi s a ction on b ehal fo fthem sel ves and C yr us’ s e sta te (c olle c tiv ely “t h e E st at e ”) a ga in st L ieu te n an t C za rn ec ki, O ffi c e r Ne l s o n, th e V i l l a g e o f Muk wo n a g o , th e T o wn ofM ukw onag o, and the pol i ce c hi efo fea ch m unici pal i ty. The com pla i nt i ncl ud ed m ult i ple federa l- a nd st ate
- l aw cl ai m s, b u t th e o nl y o ne r em aini ng o n thi s a pp eali s a Four th A m endm ent e xcessi ve- f or ce c l ai m under § 1983
. 4 Th e Es t a t e i de nt i fi e d two e xp e r twi t ne s ses : J o s e ph W al l er, wh o w as to tes ti fy o n the re aso nabl eness o f C za rn ec ki’s u se o f fo rc e d u rin g C yr u s’s a rre st, sp ec ifica lly re lat in g t o h is u se of th e T as er ; an d D r. L yn d a B ied rz yc ki, the W aukes ha County M edi calExam i ner, wh o perf or m ed th e au to psy o n Cyr us ’ s bo dy an d woul d te st i fy abo utN o. 09

- 2331 9 th e resu lts ofher ex am inatio n a nd the ca us e of C yrus ’s death. Dr. Bi edrzy ckihad cer ti fi ed the cause ofdeath as “ su ddende ath dur ing stru g g l e an d r es tr aint, ” an d i denti fi ed ei ght f acto rs thatsh e b eli eve d contr ibuted to Cyr us ’ s dea th : ( 1) the e xe r ti o n a nd s tr ug g l e wi ththe o fficers ; ( 2) pa ni c an d fea r ; ( 3) Cy r us ’ s pr o ne po si ti o n; (4) t h e p re ss u re ap p lied to C yr u s’s to rs o a n d p os sib ly ne ck; (5) C yrus ’s p sych iatri c con d iti on; (6 ) C yrus ’s re str ai nt i n hand cuff s and the offi cer s’ add i ti onal at te m pts t o r es tr ainthi m wi thl egi r o ns ; ( 7) the pa i n and panic c a us e d b y the T a s e r ; a nd ( 8 ) the e l e c t r i c a l s ho ck fro m th e T as er . D r . B i ed rz yc ki te st ified ath er d ep os iti on that whil e s he be l i eve d al l eigh t f acto rs co ntributed to Cy r us ’ s dea th, s he c o ul d no t det er m i ne whethe r a ny one f acto r w as m or e s i gni fi cant than the o ther s. F o l l o wi ngdi s c o v e r y the de f e nd a nt s mo v e d t o e xc l ud e the t est i m ony ofbo th exper ts pu rs uant to Fe deral R u l e o f Ev i de nc e 7 0 2 a nd D a ubert v. M errell D o w P h a rm a ceuti ca ls, Inc. , 50 9 U. S
. 57 9 ( 19 93 )
. The di st r i ct j udg e ex cl ud ed the m aj ority ofW all er’s testim ony a nd Dr. Bied rzycki’s tes ti m ony about the c au se o fdeath. The j ud ge concl ud ed th atb ec au se Dr
. Bi edr zy ck i c ou ld no t “u nb undl e” the f acto rs co ntrib u ting to Cyrus’ s death

— th at is, sh e c ou ld not i sol ate o ne f acto r as the prim ar y cause o fdeath

— her opi ni on t est i m ony on ca use o fdeath was i nadm iss ible. T he Es tate d oes n o t c h all en ge either of these evid en tiary ru lin gs on ap p ea l. A fterexcl ud i ng this te sti m ony, the dist ri ct j ud ge en te re d su m m ar y j u d gm en t for th e d efe n d an ts o n a ll cl ai m s. A s i s r el evantto the sol e clai m o n appeal

— th e10 N o. 09

- 2331 Four th A m endm ent c l ai m fo r ex cess i ve use o ff or ce

— th e j u d g e h e l d th a t th e ma t e r i a l f a c t s we r e u n d i s p u te d, a nd i n l i ght o fall the ci rcum sta nces, Czar necki ’ s depl oym ent o fthe Taserdi d not co nstitute e xcessi ve f or ce a s a m att ero f law. Thi s co ncl usi on was bas ed l ar gel y o n Czarneck i ’ s deposi ti on t est i m ony. T he l i eutenant tes ti fi ed th athe de ci ded to us e hi s Ta se r f o r se ve r al r ea so ns : ( 1) he knew there had bee n a v erbalco nfr ontat i on be tw een W i l l i a ms a nd Cy r us ; ( 2 ) he s us pe c t e d Cy r us mi g hthave pla ced a w eapon i n the dum pster ; and ( 3) he wanted to ta k e Cyr us i nt o c ustod y whi l e he was s ti l l o ut si de th e house f orsa fetyr eas ons. The di str i ct j ud ge accepte d thi s e xplanat i on a nd not ed i n additio n that the for ce i n f lict ed by a T as er is cla ss ified as “in te rm ed iat e” in that i t i s g ener al l y no nlethal

. Final l y, the j ud ge re l i ed o n th e f a c tth a tC y r u s h a d n o to b e y e d th e o ffi c e r s ’ c o mm ands an d r efused to sho w hi s hands f orhandcuffi ng. The cour t co ncl ud ed that u n der these ci rcum sta nces, Czarneck i ’ s use o fthe Taserwas obj ecti vel y r eas onabl e.

I I . Discussi on We r e v i e w th e d i s t r i c t co ur t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n ts u mm ar y jud gm en t d e n ov o. Su a rez v. To w n of O gd e n D u nes , 58 1 F .3d 59 1 , 5 9 5 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). Su m m ar y jud gm en t is ap p rop riate w he n th e record evide n c e sh ow s tha t “th ere i s no ge nuine i ssue as to any m ate ri alf act and that th e m ov an t is e n t i t l e d t o jud gm en t a s a m at te r of law .” F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6 ( c ) (2); se e also Celotex C orp. v. Ca tret t, 47 7 U
. S. 317, 322-23 (1986 ).N o. 09

- 2331 11 E xc essive-force clai m s in t h e c ont ex t of an arrest are re vi ew ed und erthe Fo urth Am endm ent’ s o bj ecti vere as on ab len es s s t an d ar d

. Grah am v. Conno r, 49 0 U.S
. 38 6, 395 ( 1989 ) ; A b d u l l a h iv . C i tyo f Madis on , 42 3 F
. 3d 763, 768 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. Thi s i nquir y r equi re s a n exam i nati on o fthe “ to ta l i tyo fthe c i r cu m st an ce s to de te r m i ne whe the r the i nt r us i o n on t he c i t i z e n’ s F o ur th Am e nd

m en t inter est s was j usti fi ed by the c ounter vai l i ng g over nm ent[ al ] i nter est s a t s tak e. ” Jac ob s v. C ity of Chi cago , 21 5 F
. 3d 75 8, 7 73 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 0)
. The na tu r e an d e xt en t ofthe f or ce that m ay re as on ab ly be use d to eff ectuat e ana r r es t depe nds o n the s pec i fi c ci r cumst an ces of the ar re st, i ncl u d in g “the seve ri ty ofthe cri m e a t i ssue, whethe r the s us pec t po se s ani m m edi at e th r ea t to the sa fet y of t h e o ffice rs or ot h er s , a n d w h et h er h e is ac tiv ely re sis tin g a rre st or a t t e m p tin g t o e va d e a rre st by fligh t.” Grah am , 4 9 0 U. S
. a t 3 9 6
. I f th e s u s p e c t i s me n t a l l y i l l , t he offi cer ’ s a w ar eness o fhi s m entali l l ness i s a l so a f acto r in th e a n aly sis
. Abdu l l ahi, 4 2 3 F
. 3 d a t 7 72
. B e c a u s e l a wen f o r ce m en t o ffi ce r s m us t m ak e cr i ti ca l, s pl i t-se co nd deci si ons i n diffi cul t a nd pote ntiallyexpl osi ve si tuat ion s, Grah am , 4 90 U. S
. a t 39 7, we ev al ua te the r ea so nablen ess o fthe offi cer ’ s a cti ons “fro m the perspect i ve of a r ea so nabl e o ffi ce r o n the s ce ne , r athe r tha n wi ththe 20/20 vi si on o fhi nd si ght, ” i d. at39 6. The dis tr i ct c ourt’ s s um m ar y-j ud gm ent deci si on was prem i sed o n i ts vi ew thatthe m ate ri al fac ts were und i sp u te d , m aki ng “the r eas onabl eness o fthe [ offi cer ’ s use o f ] f o r ce . . . a l eg ali ss ue . ” The c o ur t r el i ed o n B el l v. Irwin , 32 1 F
. 3d 63 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) , f o r thi s propo si ti o n, a nd in d ee d , B el l hel d tha t “w hen m ate ri alf acts ( oreno ugh12 N o. 09

- 2331

The di s t ri c tc our td id n ot e xc l ude thi s por t i on of 5 Dr. Bi edr zyc ki ’ s t es t i m ony. o fthe m t o j us t i fy the c o nd uc to b j e c t i v e l y ) a r e u nd i s pu t e d, then there w oul d be nothi ng fo r a j ury to do exc epts e c o nd

gues s t h e o ffi cer s. ” Id. at64 0. Inth is s itu at ion , w e s aid in B ell, the r eas onabl eness o fthe f or ce use d i s a lega l questio n . Id. But we al so sa i d th at “[ w]h en m at er i al f ac ts are i n dis pu te, then the c ase m ust g o to a j ury, wh ether th e a rg u m en t is th at th e p olic e a c te d u n re as on ab ly because theyl acked p ro babl e ca use, o r that they acte d u n re as on ab ly b ec au se th ey res p on d ed ov er ze alo u sly and with too l i ttl e concern f or sa fety. ” Id. A nd we have re cogni zed thatsum m ar y j ud gm en t i s o ften inapp ro pr i a t e i n e xc e s s i v e - f o r c e c a s e s b e c a us e the e v i dence su rro u n d in g t h e o ffice r’s u se o f forc e is oft en su sc ep tib le ofdi ff er ent inter preta ti ons. C a tl i n v . Ci ty of W he at on , 574 F.3 d 36 1, 36 7 (7 th C ir
. 2 00 9). T h is p rin c ip le is p ar tic u lar ly re l evantwh er e, as her e, the one ag ain st w hom f or ce w as used has di ed, bec ause the w itn es s m ostl i kel y t o co nt r adi ctthe o ffi ce r ’ s te st i m o ny

— th e v ict im

— cannot t es tify

. Gregory v . County of M aui, 52 3 F
. 3d 1103 , 11 07 (9th C ir. 2008). H er e, ther e i s co nfl i cting evi dence abo ut j ust ho w m uch f or ce Lie utenant Czarneck i used aga i nst C yr us. Czarneck i te st ified thathe depl oye d the Tase r fi ve or si x ti m es, and Dr. Bi edrzy ckinoted t h at the m ar ks on Cyrus’ s ba ck w er e co nsi ste nt with fi ve orsi x Taser shock s. The Tase r’s internalco m pu ter, however, r egi s-

5 t e r e d 1 2 t r i g g e r p ul l s du r i ngthe r e l e v a ntt i me pe r i o d.N o. 09

- 2331 13

The Tas er wil l e m i ton l y on e di s c har ge e ver y fi ve s ec ond s, 6 eve n i f t h e o perator pu ll s the tr igger m ore than once i n a fivese cond peri od

. Bu t the int ernal com pu ter regi st ers eac h t ri gge r pul l r eg ar dless ofwhethe r thatpul l e m i t s a s hoc k. For ex am pl e, i f Cza rn ec ki pul l ed the t ri gge r t wo t i m es c ons ec ut i vel y, the Tas er woul d em i ton l y on e s ho ck b u tthe com p u ter w ou ld reg ister tw o trig g er p u lls. A lth ou gh a j u ry m igh t c on c l u d e t h at th e a d d itio n al s ix tri gge r pu l l s were not i n f act “deplo ym ents” thatem i tte d an electri cal cha rge i nt o Cy rus ’s bod y, the T aser’s 6 i nter nal co m pu terr eco rd cr eat es enough o fa fac tual di s c r e pa nc y o n the de g r e e o ff or ce u s e d t o p r e c l ud e sum m ar y j ud gm ent. This dispute i s obvi ously m ate ri al beca u se the am ount o ff or ce use d bear s di re ctl y o n whethe r tha t f o r ce was a r ea so nabl e r es po ns e to the situat ion faced by the officer. The evi dence i s a l so confl i cting o n t he exte nt to wh i ch C yr u s re sis te d arr es t. Se eGr aham , 4 90 U. S
. a t 39 6 ( co nsi der i ngwhethe r the de f en dan t ev ade d a r r es t byfli gh t). To be sur e, ther e i s e vi dence that C yrus di d not o bey C za r n e c ki’s co m m an d s. B u t h is b eh av ior is su sc ep tib le ofdi ff er ent inter pr et at i ons. The part i es dispute w hether Cyrus r an o r m er ely walk ed to w ar d the house after Cza r ne cki told hi m he was o n the wro ngpr o per ty
. And alt h ou gh C za rn ec ki c h ar ac te riz es C yr u s’s ba rre l-roll do wn th e dr ivew ay as a n a tt empt t o fl ee , a j ur y might se e i t di ff er en tl y . Tha t i s, the jury m i g htr ea so nabl y c o ncl ud e that the ba rr el

- ro l l was an i nvol untaryr eact i on to the s eco nd Tase r shock

.14 N o. 09

- 2331

Po ssi bili ti es i nclude cri m inal tr es pass to dw el li ng in viol a- 7 tio n o f W IS . S TAT . § 94 3.14, or en try on to a con stru ction site or i nt o a l oc ke d bui l di ng, dwelling , or r oom i n vi ol at i on of W IS . S TAT . § 943. 15( 1)
. W hen Cy rus tu rn ed a n d m oved aw ay f r om Cz a r ne cki, h e m a y ha ve a l s o vi ol a t e d W IS . S TAT . § 94 6.41 ( 1) , whi c h m ake s i ti l l eg al t o kn owin gl y r es i s tor obstructan offic er ac ti ng in an offic ial capaci ty. All thre e pos s ibl e vi ol at i ons are class A m i s dem ea nor s puni s habl e by a m ax i m um fi ne of$1 0, 00 0, a m ax im um pr i s on t er m ofni ne m o n th s, o r b o th . W IS . S TAT . § 93 9 .51 (3 )(a). Sum m ar y j ud gm ent was al so i napp ro pr iat e be cause a j ury coul d c oncl ud e that Czarneck i ’ s use of f or c e w as ex cess ive in li gh t of t h e ot h er Grah am f a c t o r s . Cy r us h a d, at m ost , c om m i tte d a m i sdem eanoro ff ense und erW i scon sin law , and he w as no t exh ibi ting viol en t beh avior,

7 se e C asey v. C ity of Fe deral Heights , 50 9 F
. 3d 1278 , 12 81 (10 th C ir. 20 07 ) (n ot in g t h at a les se r d eg re e o f forc e is re aso nabl e whe n t h e off ense ofar re st i s no t co m m i tte d vi ol e nt l y )
. As i mpo r t a nt l y, the r e i s n o e v i de nc e s ug ges ti ng tha t Cyr us vi ol entl y r esi ste d the o ffi cer s’ at tem pts t o h a n d c u ffh i m. A l th o u g h h e r e fu s e d t o r e l e a s e h i s a r ms f o r ha ndcu ffi ng( o r perhap s h e co ul d no t be ca us e o fthe i nfl ue nc e o fthe Taser s hoc k ) , Cz arne ck i kne w tha t Cyr us w a s u n ar m ed an d th er e w as little risk C yr u s c ou ld acces s a weapon w hi l e f ace do w n atthe f oo t o fthe dri veway, wi th hi s ha nds unde r ne ath hi m an d havi ng alread y bee n shoc ked tw ice w ith th e Ta ser. M oreover, Czarneck i was f am i l i arwith Cyr us and w as aw ar e o f hi s m entali l l ness; he t est i fi ed at hi s depositi on that C y r u s h a d n e v e r a c t e d v i o l e n t l y t o wa r d h i m.N o. 09

- 2331 15 D efe n se co u n se l su gg es te d atora l arg u m en t t h at if L ie ut en an t Cza r ne ck i ’ s fi r stus e o fthe Ta se r was r ea so nabl e, al l o theru se s w er e nec ess ar i l y a pp ro pri ate bec ause once an o ffi ceri s j usti fi ed i n usi ng a p ar ticularl eve l o f f or ce t o eff ectuat e a n ar re st, he c an co nti nue to use that sam e lev el o ff or ce unti l the suspect i s a pp re hended

. N ot so. Force is reasona ble only w he n ex ercised i n prop ortio n to th e t h re at p os ed , s e eO l i ve r v. Fi or i no , 58 6 F
. 3d 89 8, 9 07( 11 thCi r . 2 00 9) ( “Qu i te s i m pl y, tho ug h the i ni ti alu se o f fo rce ( a s i ngl e Tas ersho ck) m ay have been j us tified, the rep eated ta sering
. . . w as grossly disp rop orti o na te t o a ny thr ea t po se d a nd un r ea so nable un derthe ci rcum sta nces. ”) , and a s the thre at changes , so too sh ou ld th e d eg re e o f forc e, see Sa nto s v. G a tes , 28 7 F
. 3d 84 6, 85 3 (9 th C ir. 20 02 ). For c e a lso be c om es inc re as in gly se ve r e th e m o r e o ften it i s us ed; s tr i k i nga r es i st i ng suspect on c e i s no t the sa m e a s s tr i ki ng hi m te n ti m es. I t ’ s the t o t a l i t y o f the c i r c ums t a nc e s , no t the f i rs t f or cibl e a ct, thatdeter m i nes obj ecti ve re aso nabl eness . Acco r di ng l y, a j ur y mightr ea so nabl y c o nc l ude tha t th e ci rcum sta nces ofthe encounterher e red uced the nee d fo r f or ce as the si tuati on pro gr ess ed. W hen Czarnec ki fi rs t a rr i ved atthe scene, he w as t h e only offi cero n si te, an d hi s co ncer n that Cyrus m i ght r etr i eve a w eapon or pose a thre at to perso ns i nsi de the house w as c lea rly r ea so nabl e. On th e o th erhan d , onc e Cyr us was o n the gr ound, unarm ed, and apparentl y unabl e t o sta nd up on hi s o wn, the r i skc al cul us c ha ng ed. Ors o a j ur y might reason ably con clud e. Sum m ary j ud gm en t w as th erefore i napp ro pri ate
.16 N o. 09

- 2331

W e no t e a ga i n tha t the di s t r i c t j udg e e x c l ude d D r. 8 B ied rzy ck i’ s testim on y on cau se o f d e a t h b eca u se she co u ld not “unbu nd le ” s everal contr ibuting causes , w hich incl ud ed Czarnecki’ s use o f the Taser

. Bu t we have held thatan exp ert’s inab ility to iso late o ne spe cific factor w he n m u ltiple fa c t o r s c a u s e a n inju r y im p l i c a t e s t h e w e i g h to f t h e e x p e r t ’s te s t i m o n y , no t it s a d m iss ib ili ty
. Jahn v. Eq u i n e Servs. , PSC , 23 3 F .3d 382 , 39 0 (6th C ir. 20 00 ) (“T he f act th at sev era l po ssible c au s e s mi g h t r e mai n ‘ u n e l i mi n a t e d’

. . . o n l y g o e s t o th e ac c urac y of the con clu sion , no t to the sou nd ne ss of the m e t h o d o logy. ” ( quo t at i on m ar ks om itted) )
. Bec aus e evi dent i ar y wei ght is a ju ry quest ion, ex pert t es ti m ony on the caus e ofan i njury is adm is sible even w hen it do es not el im inat e a ll o ther pos s ibl e c au se s ofi nj ur y. Id. ( “I n o rde r t o be adm i s s ibl e on the issue o f cau sation , a n ex p ert’s testim on y nee d no t elim ina te a ll o th er p o ssi b le ca u se s o f th e i nju ry .”); seeal so St. P au l M ercury Ins. C o. v. Vi ki ng C orp. , 53 9 F .3d 62 3 , 62 8 -2 9 (7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ). Czarneck i ar gues as a fallba ck posi ti on that be cause th e E st at e ha s no t ch al l en g ed th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s ex cl usion of m uc h of D r. Bied rzycki’s testim ony , there is i ns uffi ci ent e vi dence to cr eat e a j u ry questi on about causatio n . Se eBe r m an v. Young, 291 F.3d 976 , 982 (7th Cir. 2002). W e di sa gr ee , a l though i t i s ce rt ai nl y t rue that the di str i ct co ur t’ s ex cl us i o n ofke y medi ca l

- ex ami ne r t es ti m o ny

— an i ssue unad dressed and ther ef or e abandoned on appeal

— m ake s the ta sk ofpro vi ng ca usati on m uch m or e di ffi cul t. 8 Czarneck i m ai ntai ns that ask i ng a j ury to i nfe r causat i on wi th o ute xpe r t te st i m o ny woul d b e ak i n t o pr o ce eding un d er a theor y of r e s ips a l oq ui t ur

— i m properi n a § 19 83 acti on

—be ca us e th e Est at e wou l d ha ve t o a r g ue tha t th eN o. 09

- 2331 17 f or ce Czar neckiused m u st h ave been excess i ve because peo pl e do no t o r di na r i l y di e afte r b eings ho ck ed wi tha Ta se r . He r el i es o n E stat e of P hil lip s v . C ity of M ilw a uk ee, 1 2 3 F
. 3 d 5 8 6 , 5 9 4

- 9 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) , a nd B row nell v. Fig el , 950 F.2 d 1 285, 12 92- 93 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) , as support f or th is a rg u m en t, bu t t h is re lian c e is m isp lac ed . W e h eld i n P hil lip s a nd B row nel l th at a p lai nt iff can not ask a j ury to infe r th at an offic er u se d ex c es siv e fo rc e b as ed so lely on the f act that an i nj ury occur re d. The pla i nti ffm ust i nstea d i dent ify th e s peci fi c co nd uct o fthe offi certhat i s a l l ege d to be e xcessi ve and unreaso nabl e; th e f act of a n i nj u r y w h i l e i n p o l i c e cu s t o d y i s n o te n o u g h

. We el ab o r at ed o n thi s pr i nc i pl e i n Abdu l l ahi, e x pla i ni ng tha t P hil lip s a nd B rown el l “s ta n d for t h e p ro p o s i t i o n th at
. . . a p la i n tiff m u st id en tify th e s p ec ific u n re as on ab le conduct thatcause d his o r h er i nj uri es. ” 4 23 F. 3d at 770- 71. Thus, a pla i nti ffcl ai m i ng tha t a n offi cerused exce ssive for ce can not m erely assert “ t h a t the f acts sup p ort an i nfe re nce o f‘ excess i ve f or ce, the preci se nature of w hi ch has yetfull y t o c om e to l i ght. ’ ” Id. a t 77 0 ( quo ting B rown el l , 950 F.2d at 129 2). T he rule of Phil l ips a nd B rown el l th us f o cus es o n the type ofpro ofr equi re d to es ta b l i sh the fi rs t e l em ent o f an ex c es siv e-fo rc e c laim

— that is, thatthe offi ceri n quest io n u sed obj ectively un reason able force un d er the circumst an ce s. Her e, the Es ta te ha s am pl y i den ti fi ed th e spe ci fi c co nduc t i t co nt en ds was e xc es sive a nd un r ea so nab le u n d er th e c irc u m st an c es . P hil lip s a nd B rown el l ar e inapp l i cabl e. St i l l, as we have no ted, witho ut exper t t est i m ony, cau sation w il l be difficult to estab li sh

. B ut t h e re c ord18 N o. 09

- 2331 conta i ns eno ugh evi dence fro m wh i ch a re ason ab le j ur y c o ul d c o nc l ud e a s a mat t e r o f l a y j ud g men tthat the e xcessi ve use o ff or ce

— i fi nd eed Czar necki ’ s use o f for c e w as ex c es siv e a n d u n re as on ab le

— cau sed Cy rus ’s de a th. Co mm o n- l a w r ul e s o f t o r t c a us a t i o n a ppl y t o § 1 983 cl aim s, seeHe rzog v. Vi l l
. of Wi nne t ka , 30 9 F
. 3d 1041 , 10 44 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) , a n d t h e gener alr ule i s that ex p er t t es tim on y is n ot n ec es sa ry to p ro ve c a u s a t ion “if all t h e p r i m ar y fa c ts ca n be ac c u ra te ly a n d int ellig ibly described to the j ury, and i fthey, as m en o fco m m on unde r st an di ng, a r e as cap ab l e o fc o m pr eh en di ngthe pri m ar y f acts a n d of draw i ng co rr ect concl usi ons f ro m them as are w i tness es posse sse d ofspeci alo r peculi ar tr ai ni ng, experi ence oro bser vati on. ” Sa lem v. U .S. Lines Co. , 370 U .S . 3 1, 35 (19 62 ) (qu ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ); see al s o Ab dul l ahi, 4 23 F
. 3d at7 71 ( ex ami ni ngwhethe r the inj ury w as con sisten t w ith ex cess ive f orce). The “pri m ar y f acts ” her e incl ud e th e cl ose te m pora l pr o xi m i ty bet wee n the a l l eg edl y e xc es si ve f o r ce a nd Cyrus’ s death: Cyrus sto pp ed br eathi ng j ust a m i nute o r two a fte r b eingrepe ate dl y s ho ck ed wi ththe Ta se r, a nd thi s t i ght c hro nol ogybea rs o n causat i on. Otherev i dence sugge sts th at pote nti alal ter nati ve causes o fdeath m ay be r ule d out. Fo r exam ple , the toxi col ogyr epor t, wh i ch th e d is tr i ctc o ur t di d no t ex cl ude , s ho ws tha t Cyr us i ng es te d no s ti m ul an ts o r na r co ti cs o th ertha n a m i ni m alam ount o fcaff ei ne. There i s no ev id en ce that C yr u s ha d an y pr ior inju rie s th at c ou ld h av e ca u se d h is d ea th d u rin g t h e c on fro n ta tio n w ith th e offic er s, see B rown el l , 95 0 F
. 2d at 1293 ( re fusi ng to fi nd l i abil i ty beca u se p l ai nti ffwas al so i nvol ved i n a s er i ous c arN o. 09

- 2331 19

Thoughe xc l uded, Dr. Bi edr zyc ki ’ s t es t i m ony on c aus at i on 9 do es s ugg es t, how ever, thatan i nd ividual w ith bipolar disorde r o r s c hi z op hr e ni a c ou l d b e m or e l i ke l y tha n an ave ra ge pe rs on t o s uff er c ar di ac ar re s ti n thi s s i t uat i on.

11- 10- 10 ac ci den t th atc o ul d ha ve c au sed h i s i nj ur y ) , o r tha t he suff er ed f ro m a preexi sti ng condi ti on that could h ave c au se d h is c ar d iac arr es t, L as h v. Hol li s , 5 25 F. 3d 636, 64 0 ( 8th Ci r. 20 08) ( re fusi ng to i nfer c au sati on ba sed o n l ay ev id en c e b ec au se , inte r alia , the vi cti m poss ibl y su ff er ed f r o m a pr ee xi st i ngmedi ca l cond i ti o n)
. The r e i s no e v i d e n c e o f a n y p o s s ib l e i n t e r v e n i n g c a u s e s o fde at h. 9 I n s ho r t, al th o ug h the exc l us i o n ofa s i g ni fi ca ntpa r t o fthe m edi ca l ex ami ne r ’ s te st i m o ny l ea ve s th e Est at e wi tha m ajor g ap in it s c as e, th e re c or d is n ot so w h olly d ev oid of evi dence on w hi ch a j ury coul d fi nd causation that Czarneck i i s e nti tl ed to ju dgm ent a s a m att ero fl aw o n thi s a l ter nati ve basi s. R EV ER S ED an d R EMAND ED