## 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

- 3471 R OGERF O RREST, J R ., P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. M ICHAELP R I NE , D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 4:0 7-cv-04 08 6-JAG

—Jo hn A . G orman, Magis trate Judge
.
A RG UE D A PRI L 14, 2010

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 31, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, R IPPLE a nd K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, C ircu i t Ju dg e. Rog erFo rr estbr ought thi s a cti on aga i nst Offi cerM i c h ae l Pr i ne and Rock I sl and C ounty Sher i f fM i chaelH uff, as ser ti ng, am ong othe r thi ngs, an excess i ve f or ce c l ai m ag ai nst Offi cerPrine under 4 2 U
. S. C. § 1 983. T h e d istr i ct c ourtgr anted sum m ar y j ud gm en t f o r th e d e f e n d a n t s . Mr
. F o r r e s ta p p e a l s o n l y the dism i ssal o fhi s e xcessi ve f or ce c l ai m ag ai nst Offi cer Prine
. For t h e rea son s stated i n th is opinion, w e affirm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.2 N o. 09

- 3471 I B AC KGR OUND A. On M ar ch 8, 20 07, the pol i ce r esponded to a 9 11 cal l fro m M r. Fo rr est ’ s son, wh o re port ed that M r. Fo rr estwas hi tt i ngpe o pl e i n the i r ho m e. The po l ice a r r i ve d a nd f ound M r. F or re st to be uncoo perat i ve. The pol i ce for ceful l y e nt er ed th e ho m e, a nd an a l te r ca ti o n e ns ue d dur i ng w h ich M r. For re st st ru c k a p o l i c e o ffice r in th e fa c e. In order to subdu e M r. Fo rr est, the pol i ce e m plo yed a tas er devi ce s eve ra l ti m es. S eve ra l p olice o ffi cer s then es cor ted M r. For re st to the Ro ck I sl and C ounty J ai l

. M r. Fo rr est ultim ately w as ch arged w ith aggrava ted b attery of a pol i ce o f fi cer, a f el ony charg e. Rock I sl and County h as a p ol i cy that any per son charg ed w ith a felo n y is re q u i re d to su b m it t o a co m p let e s tr ip sea r c h as p art of th e booking p rocess i n ord er to ensu re th at n o w ea p on s o r c o n tr ab an d are br ou gh t in to th e jail. This pol i cy i s m eant to prot ect the safe ty o fi m pri sone d i ndi vi dual s an d o ffi ce r s i n the j ai l. The s tr i p s ea r chi ncl ude s a vi su alb o dy ca vi tys ea r ch

. M r . F o r r es t was e sc o r te d t o a ho l di ngc ell f o r the str i p sear ch. H e e sti m ate d that b etwe en si x and seve n offi cer s r em ain ed i n the ar ea. The o ffi cer s o bser ved that M r. Fo rr estappeare d to be und erthe i nfl uence o fso m eth in g, p os sib ly a lco h ol. M r. For re st r e m o v e d m os t o f h is cl othi ng, bu t refused to r em ove hi s underwear. Offi cer M i chaelPrine ent er ed th e c ell w i th a tas erand or dered M r. F o r r e s tt o r e mov e h i s u nd e r we a r . Offi c e r P r i ne h adN o. 09

- 3471 3

In ac cord ance with the j ail ’ s es tabli shed s tr ip s earc h 1 protocols , the offic ers com m and ed M r. Forres t t o bend over, sp re a d h is b u tt o ck s, sq u a t d o w n an d co u g h

. M r. For re s tappa re nt l y was di s abl ed due t o a l eg i nj ur y, an d 2 h a d , o n som e occasi on s i n t he past, wa l k e d wi t h a c a n e . Ho wev er, M r. For rest d id n ot testify tha t he w as lim p ing on this oc c a s i on, a nd the o f fi c e r s de ni e d tha tMr. F or r e s te x hibi t e d a lim p d u ring the co u rse of ev en ts that ev en ing
. T hu s, n o ev idence exi st s f rom w h ic h w e m ay d raw the reas onab le i nf erence thatM r. Forres t was l im ping on M arch 8, 2007. A t the ti m e ofthe events i n quest ion, M r. Forres t was 42 ye ar s ol d. H is appro xi m at e he i ghtan d wei ghtwer e 5’ 11 ” a nd 2 8 0 p o u n d s. O ffice r P ri n e w a s 6 ’1” an d w ei g h ed 29 5 p o u n d s. been tr ai ned i n the use of ta ser s. A l though he had not ar re ste d M r. Fo rr estea rl i er that eve ni ng, Offi cerPrine was aw ar e that a ta seralrea d y had been e m plo yed se ver al ti m es on M r. Fo rr estduri ng the cour se ofthe ar re st. Offi cer Pr i ne war ne d M r. Fo r r es t th athe woul d e m pl o y the t a s e r i fh e d i d n o tc o mp l y w i th th e s t r i p s e a r c h c o mm ands. M r. Fo rr estcal l ed the offi cer s “ f agg ots ” a nd used ot h er ex p let ive s. See Fo rres t Dep
. 48 : 19- 22, Oct. 22 , 20 08; Pri ne Dep. 33 : 23- 25, Oct. 22 , 20 08. M r . F o r rest ev en tu al l y r emov ed hi s unde r wea r b ut wo u l d n o t c o m p l y w i th th e r e s t o f th e s t r i p s e a r c h c o mman ds

. S houti ngo b s c e ni t i e s a nd wi th fi s t s c l e nc he d,

1 M r . F o r r es t b egan pac i ngb ac ka nd f o r thwhi l e f ac i ng Offi cerPrine. M r. Fo rr estneve r approached Of fi cer 2 Pri ne and r em ai ned 7- 10 f ee t aw ay. Overthe cour se of seve ral m inu tes, O fficer Prine rep eated ly told M r. For re st that unle ss h e com pli ed w i th the st ri p sear ch4 N o. 09

- 3471

In hi s app el lat e bri ef, M r. Forres t s tat es thathe t es ti fied that 3 h e d id n o t d u ck

. S eeAppel l ant ’ s Br. 6- 7. How eve r he doe s no t c om pl y with Fede ra l R ul es ofAppel l at e Pr oc edur e 10 ( b) ( 2) an d 28 (a)( 7), or C ircu it R u le 28 (c), w h i c h re qu ire M r. For rest to 

### (continued...) com m ands, the offi cerwould use the t ase r. Offi cer Pr i ne t est i f i ed tha th e di d n o tb e l i e v e i twa s s a f e t o a pp roach M r. Forrest any closer. Offi cerPrine fi nal l y e m p loyed the tas ero n M r. Fo rr est
. The offi cerhel d the t ase r w i th bo th hands, o utstr etche d f r o m hi s bo dy. The o ffi ce r t es ti fi ed th athe a i m ed th e tas erg una tMr
. F o r r e s t ’ s u pp e r b a c k

. Ano the r p o l i ce o f fi ce r, Chr i st o phe r Yo ung, te sti fi ed th at, a t so m e po i nt du ri ng the ev ents, he s aw the tas er ’ s l ase r si ghted o n M r . F o r r e s t ’ s t o r s o . A thi r d o ffi c e r, Mi c ha e l Mend oza , te st ifi ed si m i l ar l y, cl ar i fyi ng tha t the l ase r w as si ghted “chestto wais t. ” M endoza Dep. 54 : 11, M ar . 23 , 20 09. M r. For re st te st ified th at th e t as er w as p oin te d ath is f ac e, a lthou g h h e co ul d no t se e th e r ed do t o fthe tas er ’ s l ase r. H e t ol d Offi cerPrine to ge t the ta sero ut o f hi s f ace. Fo rr estDep. 46 : 24- 47: 11, Oct. 22 , 20 08. O ffic er Prine test ified th at, as he fi red the tas er, M r. Fo rr est“k i nd o fbentdow n. ” Pr i ne Dep. 64 : 13- 16, Oct. 22 , 20 08. Offi cerYoung t es tifie d that M r. Fo rr est “ducked dow n and turned j ust a s the ta serwas dep loy ed

. ” Young Aff

. 2, J une 23, 20 09. Offi cerM endoza tes ti fi ed that M r. Fo rr es t m ad e s om e k i nd o funusual m ove m ent, “a l m ostl i ke a duck. ” M endoza Dep. 54:19- 22, M ar . 23 , 20 09. M r. Fo rr est d id notte sti fy t o the c ontr ar y. 3N o. 09

- 3471 5



### (...continued) s uppor thi s c ont en t i on with c i t at i ons t o t he s um m ar y j udgm en t re c or d. W e have f ound no s uppor t f or M r. For re s t ’ s c ont en t i on, an d , thu s, w e sha ll not cr ed it it. One tase r disc harg e hi t M r. Fo rr est ’ s f ace, nearhi s e ye; anothe r dart str uck hi s a rm . M r. Fo rr estfel l and stru ck hi s f ac e ag ai ns t th e ba ckwall of th e ho l di ngc el l, c au sing a m i l d dep re sse d defo rm i ty ofhi s l eft z ygo m ati c ar ch (his chee kbon e).

B. M r . F o r r es t br o ug htthi s ac ti o n a g ai ns t Of fi ce r Pr i ne and Sher iffH uff

. The se cti on 1 983 count r el evantto thi s a pp ealal l ege d that Offi cerPrine em plo yed exce ssi ve f or ce w hen he used the tas er to subdu e M r. Fo rr est
. M r. Fo rr estal l ege d that he sustain ed an i nj ury w hen he st ruck the wal l o fthe c ell; he doe s no t a l l ege an i nj u r y fr o m th e a c t u a l i mp a c to fth e t a s e r . T h e c o mpl a i nti de nt i fi e d the F o ur th a nd F our t e e nth Am e nd

m ents to the Const i tuti on a s b as es f orthe excess i ve f or ce cl ai m . Offi cer Pri ne m ove d f or sum m ary j ud gm ent, co n tend i ng tha t no ge nuine i ssue ofm ate ri alf act ex i st ed as t o w he th erhe ha d us ed ex ce ss i ve f o r ce . The d istri ct cou rt, ap p lyi ng the E ight h A m en d m en t stan d ard pro hib i t i ng t he mal i c i o us a nd s a di s t i c i nfl i c t i o n of harm , ag re ed and gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent f or Offi cerPrine. M r. Fo rr estappeal s o nl y that por ti on o f the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r uling.6 N o. 09

- 3471 II DI S C US S I ON W e review d e n ovo a d istri ct cou rt’s grant of sum m ary j u d gm en t. See Lew is v . D o w ney, 581 F.3d 467, 472 (7th C ir. 20 09 )
. S um m ar y j ud gm en t sh o ul d b e g r an te d “ i fthe ple ading s, the disc ove ryand dis cl osur e m at er i al s o n fi l e, a nd a ny a f fi dav i ts s ho w tha t there i s no g en ui ne iss u e a s t o a n y m at er ial fa c t a n d th at t h e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to j udg m en t as a matt ero fl aw . ” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (c )(2) . A l l d isp u te d fac ts are res olv ed an d rea so n ab le i nfe re nces are d ra w n i n f avo r ofthe non- m ovi ng par ty, M r. Fo rr est
. SeeLe w is , 581 F.3d at47 2; s e eal s o Ande rs on v. Libe rty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U. S
. 2 42 , 2 48 , 2 55 ( 19 86 )
. The s ummar y j ud g men ts t a nd a r d
m i rr or s the st andard f ora dir ecte d v erdictunder F ede r al Rul e o f Ci vi l Pr o ce dur e 50 ( a)
. . . . [ T] he g e n u in e is su e s u m m ar y jud gm en t s ta n d ar d is ver y c l ose to the re aso nabl e j ury dir ecte d verd ict standa r d .

. . . [ T] he i nqui r y unde r e ac h i s th e sa m e: whethe r the e vi den ce pr es en ts a su ffi ci en t disa gr eem ent t o re quir e s ubm i ssi on t o a j ury or w hetheri t i s s o one- si ded thato ne par ty m ust p r e v a i l a s a ma t t e r o fl a w. Ande rs on , 477 U .S. at 2 50 -51 ; se e also Celotex C orp. v. Ca tret t, 477 U
. S. 317, 322-23 (1986 ). To pre vai l i n thi s s ecti on 1 983 acti on, M r. For re st m ust est abl i sh ( 1) thath e had a co nsti tuti onal l y pr ote cted ri ght, ( 2) thathe was depri ved o f t h at ri ght, ( 3) that Of fi ce r P rine i nt en ti o na l l y de pr i ve d hi m o ftha t r i g htN o. 09

- 3471 7

a n d ( 4 ) t h a t O f fi c e r P r i n e a c t e d u n d e r c o l o r o f s t a t e l aw . See C ruz v . S a

f f o rd, 579 F.3d 840 , 843-44 (7th C ir. 2009). T h e t h ird an d fou rt h ele m en ts are n ot atiss u e in th is ca se . O u r f o c u s , th e r e f o r e , mu s t b e o n th e fi r s t an d se c on d ele m en ts
.
A. A l though M r. Fo rr est ’ s co m pla i nt al l ege s that Offi cer Pri ne depri ved hi m o fhi s F ourth A m en d m en t r i ght t o be fr ee fr o m u nrea so nabl e se ar cha nd s ei zu r e, he i nvi tes o ur a tte nti on pri m ar i l y t o authoriti es base d on t he F o ur t e e nth A men dme nt
. As the di s t r i c tc o ur ta ppeare d to re cogni ze, the Fourth Am endm ent r i ght t o be fre e fro m unreasonabl e s ear ches and sei zure s has te m p or al lim ita tio n s, s e e Le e v. City of C hic ago , 33 0 F
. 3d 45 6, 4 62

- 63 ( 7th Ci r . 2003), an d do es no t ex te nd thr o ug hou t t h e e n tir e p re tr ial d et en tio n p ro c es s, s e e Payn e v. C h u rc hich , 161 F.3d 103 0, 1039 & n.10 ( 7th Cir. 1998); Wi l ki ns v. M ay, 8 7 2 F .2 d 1 90 , 192 -94 (7t h C ir. 19 89 ). A lth o ug h we ha ve no t y etha d o cc as i o n to de fi ne pr ec i se l y the c o nt o ur s o ftho se t empor all i m i ta ti o ns , the even ts th at u nfolde d i n th is ca s e p lac e M r. Forrest’s c l a i m o u t s i d e th e t e mp o r a l b o u n d s o fth e F o u r th A me n dm en t. Cf. Wi l ki ns , 8 72 F
. 2d at1 92

- 93 ( co nc l udi ngtha t no F o ur thAm en dm en t r i g hta ppl i ed atthe m om en t th e pla i nti f fa ll ege d excess i ve f or ce in a pr etr i alpri son settin g beca us e the pla intiffhad been “seized ” for p urposes o fthe Four th A m endm ent when he w as ar re ste d pr ev i o us l y , a nd no t when th e ex ce ssive f o r ce i nc i den t oc c u rre d ). Se ege ne r al l y M itc h ell W . K ar sc h, N ot e, Exce s s i ve8 N o. 09

- 3471 For cean d theFo ur t h Am e ndment : When D oe s Se izureEnd? , 58 Ford ha m L. Rev. 823 (1990). A s the case com es to us , th erefore, M r. Forrest’s prim ary conte nti on i s that he w as depri ved ofhi s F ourteenth Am en dm en t r i g ht to due pr o ce ss whenOffi ce r Pr i ne empl o y ed th e ta se r on hi m . Thi s pr o vi si o n pr o vi des the appropri ate co nsti tuti onalst andard aga i nst which t o m eas ure M r. Fo rr est ’ s cl aim b ecause he was a pretr i al detai nee a t the ti m e he al l ege s hi s co nsti tu tio nal r i ghts w er e v i ola te d

. See E stat e of M o relan d v . D ieter, 39 5 F
. 3d 747, 758 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “Because M or el and w as a p re tr ial d et ain ee in t h e jail att h e t i m e o f h is d ea th in custo dy, the pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m fall s withi n the Four tee nth A m en d m en t
. . . .”); Payne, 161 F.3d at10 39 -40 (“[I]t is cl earthatM r. H i cks ess enti al l y i s a l l egi ng m al tr eatm en t whi l e i n c us to dy as a pr et r i alde tai ne e. Underthe preva i l i ng ca se l aw , such a l l ega ti ons ar e t re ate d as cl ai m s under the Due Pr oce ss Clause o fthe Four tee nth A m en d m en t.” ); Wi l s o n v . Wi l l i a ms , 83 F. 3d 870 , 8 75 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6) ( “Be twe enthe status o ffr ee c i ti ze n a nd c o nvi cted pri sone r l i es th e ‘pre tr i aldetai nee, ’ pro tect ed by th e d ue p rocess claus e of th e Fou rteen t h A m en d m en t.”)
. I n a s i mi l a r c o nt e xt, we h a v e e xp l a i ne d: The sco pe of an i nd i vi du al ’ s r i ght t o be fre e fro m puni sh m en t

— and, deri vati vel y, the basi s f oran excess i ve f or ce a cti on br ought u n d er § 1983

— hi nges on hi s s tatus w i th i n the cri m i nal j usti ce sys tem
. On one end ofthe spectr um ar e s entence d pr i s o ne r s . T he Ei g hth Am e nd men tp r o t e c t s these i ndi vi dual s o nl y fr o m the i nfl i ct ion of cr ue l a ndN o. 09

- 3471 9

I n L ew is v . D ow n ey, 58 1 F .3d 46 7(7t h C ir . 20 0 9 ), th e p la in tiff 4 ha d b een con v icted , b u t w as aw aiting senten cing
. T h u s, his c on s t i t ut i on a l s t a t us , f or pu r po s e s o fh i s s e c t i on1 9 8 3 e x c e s s i ve f orce cl aim , fel l som ew here in bet w een p ret ri al detainee a nd s e nt e nc e d p r i s on e r . W e h e l d tha tthe F ou r t e e nth Am e nd

m en t prov ided the basi s f or his cl aim
. M r. Forres t was awai t i ng a rra i gnm en tatthe t i m e Of fi c er Pr i ne e m pl oye d t he tas er. M r. Forres t theref ore f all s w ithin the pretr ial detai nee categ or y an d the F ou rteen th A m en d m en t serv es as the b asis fo r h is e xc es siv e fo rc e c la im
. u n u su al p u n ish m en t, w h i c h is oft en d efin ed in the pr i son conte xt as the unnecessar y a nd wanton in flict ion of p ain
. Pret ri al detai nees, by contr ast, have not been convi cted o r sente nced and thu s are notye t pu ni shabl e under the l aw . A s such, pre tr i aldeta i ne es c o uche xc es si ve f o r ce c l ai m s as v i o l at i o ns o fthe i r F o ur te en thAm en dm en t ri gh ts t o due pr o c e s s , n o ti nfr i ng e men t s o n the E i gh th Am e nd

m ent’ s ba n on c rueland unusual pu ni shm ent. Lewis , 5 81 F. 3d at4 73 ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o n mar k s an d ci tat i ons om i tte d). The Fo urte enth A m endm ent r i ght t o 4 d u e pr oc es s p ro vid es at lea st as m u c h, an d p r ob ab ly m or e, pro tect i on a gai n st pun i shm ent a s doe s the Ei ghth A m en d m en t ’s b an on cr u el a n d u n u su al p u n ish m en t. Id. at4 75 ( ci tingC ity of R evere v. M a ss. G en. Ho sp., 463 U
. S. 23 9, 24 4 (1 98 3)); s e eal s o Wi l s on , 83 F. 3d at 875. M r. Fo rr est ha s no t ex pl ai ne d, ho wev er, ho w anypr o te ct i o ns g ua r an tee d by the Fo urte enth Am endm ent pr ovi de hi m with m or e p ro te c tio n th an h e w ou ld rec eiv e u n d er tra d i-10 N o. 09

- 3471

I nd e e d, “ t he e x a c tc on t ou r s o fa ny a ddi t i on a l s a f e gu a r ds 5 [ guaranteed by the Fourteenth A m endm ent] rem ain undefined. ” L ew is , 581 F. 3d at 474. tional Eigh th A m en d m en t stan d ard s. W e the r e fore 5 shal l borro w Ei ghth Am endm ent s tandards t o anal yze Mr
. F o r r e s t ’ s Fo u r t e e n th A me n d me n ts e c t i o n 1 9 8 3 c l a i m. C f. Le w is , 5 81 F
. 3d at4 75 ( r efus ing to co ns i der, abs en t th e p arties’ raisi ng th e issue, “an y safegu ard s t h e Fo urtee nth A m endm ent pr ov i des be yond tho se i t s hare s w ith th e E ighth A m en d m en t”). “T he ‘ unne ce ss ar y a nd wan ton i nfl i ct i o n o fpa i n’ o n a p ris on er vio lat es h is rig h ts u n d er t h e E igh th A m en d m en t.” Id. ( quoti ng Whit ley v . Alb ers , 475 U
. S. 312, 319 ( 1986 ))
. Force u sed i n “a goo d -f aith effort to m aintain or restore disc i pli ne, ” does notr i se to the l eve l o fbeing unnecessa ry an d w an to n . H uds on v. M cM i l l i an , 503 U
. S. 1, 7 ( 1992 ). Only f or ce intended “m al i ci ousl y a nd sa dist i cal l y” to c au se h ar m to th e p ris on er falls u n d er th at st an d ar d

. Id. Se ver alf acto rs ar e r el evantin de t e r mi ni ng wh ether a defendant ap p li ed f or ce in go od f ai th o r f or pu rpos es ofcausi ng har m , incl ud i ng the need f orf or ce, the am ou n t of fo rce used, the thre at r e a s o nab l y p e r c e i ved by the o ffi c e r, e ff o r t s ma de to t emperthe s ev er i tyo f th e f o r ce , a nd the e xt en t ofthe i nj ury caused by the f or ce. Lewis , 58 1 F
. 3d at 477.N o. 09

- 3471 11

I n L ew is , the p l a i ntiff w as stru ck b y an officer’s taser w hile 6 l yi ng i n a bed and, ac c or di ng t o hi s ver s i on of t he f ac t s , without w arning. W e deter m ined tha t a genuine i ss ue ofm ater ial f act ex i s t ed a s t o whe t her the offi c er ’ s us e off or c e atthatm om en t was inten d ed as a good f ai t h e f f or tt o m ai nt ai n o rde r or w as exc es si ve. The f act s in M r. Forres t’ s cas e a re, ofcours e, not com parab le

. B. M r. Fo rre st c on te n d s th at O ffice r P rin e ha d a b s olu te ly no j usti fi cati on f orusi ng a tas ero n hi m bec ause M r. Fo rr estposed no thre at. W e m ust co ncl ud e that n o re as on ab le jur y w ou ld ag re e. S e eA n d e r s on , 47 7 U.S
. at 250-51 (d iscus sing th e sum m a r y j ud gm en t stan d ard ). O fficer Pr i ne was aware that M r. Fo rr esthad att acke d ano f fi ce r e ar l i er i n the ni g ht, ne ce ss i ta tinga t l ea sto ne us e of th e taser to m aintain officer safety and pu bli c ord er. M r. Fo rr estdoes not dispute that he appear ed to be in to x ica te d , an d , con se q u en tly , th e o ffice r re as on ab ly co ul d ha ve p erce i ve d hi m a s ac tingunpr edi ct ab l y . The i mm e di a t e s i t ua t i o n f a c i ngOffi c er P ri ne wa s i nd e e d a ver y di ffi cul t o ne. M r. Fo rr estwas a r el at ivelyl ar ge m an confi ned i n an e n c los ed space ofr el ati vel y s m al l ar ea. F ac i ngOffi cer Pri ne , he was pa ci ngi n the c el l, c l en ch i ng hi s fi sts and ye l l i ng o bsce ni ti es. M r. Fo rr estwas not m er el y “ sl ow to c om plyw i th an or der”; hi s co nd uct cre ate d a si tuati on wh er e the o ffi cer s were “f aced with agg re ssio n, di sr up ti on, [ and] physi calthr eat
. ” Lewis , 58 1 F. 3d at 477. Cl ear l y, M r. Fo rr estpose d an i m m edi ate 6 thr ea t to sa f ety an d o r der wi th i n th e j ai l

. The us e o f a tas eri n such ci rcum sta nces c on sti tuted a perm i ssibl e use12 N o. 09

- 3471

M r. For re s ts ugge s t s thatOf fi c er P ri ne s houl d have us ed the 7 di re c t c ont ac t f ea t ur e of t he t as er, as oppos ed t o t he gun f ea t ur e. The r ec or d m ake s c l ear, ho wever, thatOf fi c er Pr i ne rea son ab ly a ssessed tha t he co u ld no t safely d raw suffi cien tly c l os e t o M r. For re s tt o pe rm i ts uc h a n a ppl i c at i on of the tas er. N or does the r ecord affir m ati vely es tabli sh that s uch an appl i c at i on would h ave res ul t ed i n l es s ofa c han c e of M r. For rest falling an d sustain ing injur ies sim i l a r in k ind to tho se of w hich he n ow com p lain s. of for c e. See id
. at 47 7-7 8 (“ Ina ja i l o r p ris on se tt in g, it i s not har d to i m agi ne any num bero fsce nari os that w ou ld j us tify the [ us e of]

. . . taser gu ns . ”). 7 Ad di ti o na l l y , b efo r e empl o y ing th e ta se r, Offi ce r Pr i ne w ar ned M r. Fo rr est severa l tim es that noncom pli ance woul d r es ul t i n t as i ng . M r . F o r r es t di d no t hee d the w ar n in gs . C

f. K i n n e y v . Ind. Yo uth C tr. , 95 0 F
. 2d 462, 46 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) ( affi rm i ng su m m ar y j ud gm ent di sm i ssa l o fth e p l a i n t i f f s ’ E i g h th A me n d me n ts e c t i o n 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms ofexce ssi ve f or ce a gai nst defendant offi cerbec ause offi cerga ve the pl ain tiff s v erbalwarni ngs t o sto p orbe sh ot). I n the c o ur se o fhi s ar g um en t to us, M r . F o r r es t co ntends thata genui ne i ssue ofm ate ri alf act exi sts as to w hetherOffi cerPrine ai m ed at M r. Fo rr est ’ s e ye. A l though he clai m s no sp ecifi c inj ury to h is eye, M r . F o rrest nev erth el es s su bmi ts that, ifOffi ce r Pr i ne di d a i m the i ns tr um enta t hi s ey e, s ucha f ac t woul d e vi nc e a “mal i ci o us and sadi sti c” in te nt o n Offi cerPrine’ s par t t o cause ha r m , e ve n i fs o m e f o r ce was pe r m i ssible undertheN o. 09

- 3471 13

c irc u m st an c es . See H uds on , 5 03 U. S
. a t 7. I n Mr. F o r r est’ s vie w , th e m er e fa c t t h at a ta s e r s t r u c k n ea r h is e ye co n st itutes a “sm oking g un” and requir es u s to i nfe r that Of fi ce r Pr i ne i nt en ded th atthe t as ers tr i k e th atl o ca ti o n. Fi rs t, as a p re l i m i narym att er, we thi nk tha t s uch an i nfer en ce i s ani ne xo r ab l e co ns eque nc e o fthe s i tu at i o n. N o r ea so nabl e per so n c o ul d a ccep t M r . F o r r es t’ s co nt en ti on that, bec ause the o ffi cerwas tr ain ed in the use of tas er s, the only p os sib le re as on for t h e ta se r h itt in g h is fac e is th at O ffice r P rin e in te n d ed th at th e t as er h it h is f a c e b e c a u s e h e mu s t h a v e h i t p r e c i s e l y wh er e he w as ai m i ng. T h er e is ano therve ryo bvi ous e xplanat i on as to w h y t h e t as er h it M r. For re st ’s fa c e. A s w e a lr e a d y h a v e n o t e d , th e u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e s h o ws that M r. Fo rr estwas paci ng i n an a gita ted m anner w hen Offi cerPrine di schar ged the ta ser d evice
. N o re asonab l e j ury coul d bel i eve t h at a pol i ce o ffi cer, al though tr ain ed in t h e u se oft a s e rs , alw ay s h its p re c ise ly h is tar getwh en the ta rg et i s m ovi ng. M or e i m port antl y, on this reco rd, i t sim plywould not be per m i ssible f ora j ury to i nfe r f ro m the m er e f act that th e t as e r h i t M r. For re st ’s fa c e t h at O ffice r P rin e m alic i o us l y a nd s a di s t i c a l l y i nt e nd e d t o c a us e Mr
. F o r r e st pai n. Af te r a n e xa m i na ti o n o fthe e nt i r e r ec o r d, we co ncl ud e confide ntlytha t th e ev i den ce woul d not su st ai n a j u r y v e r d i c tp r e mi s e d u p o n s u c h a n i n f e r e n ce . A s we al re ady have not ed, t he r eco rd r eve al s that Offi cer Pri ne co nfr onte d, i n cl ose quart er s, a defi ant, bel l i ger ent, i n to x ica te d p re tr ial d et ain ee . H e e m p loy ed th e t as er on ly afte r he ha d war ne d M r . F o r r es t to co o per at e. Thi s war ni ng14 N o. 09

- 3471

I n Or e m v. Re ph a nn , 523 F. 3d 442, 447 ( 4th Cir

. 2008) , an offic er 8 em p loy ed a taser o n the p lain tiff an d to ld h er to “ stop it” an d to re s p e c t th e o ffice r’s a u th o ri ty , im m ed ia te ly aft er th e p la in tiff had curs ed at the offic er. Those f act s, alo n g w ith the m anner i n w h i c h th e o ffi c e r u se d th e ta se r , c o n t r i b u t e d to th e c o u r t ’s concl u sio n thatgenuine i ss ues ofm ater ial f actex is ted as t o whe t he r t he offi c er ’ s “us e ofthe t as er gun was want on, sadis ti c, and no t a good f aith eff ort to r es tore disc ipli ne. ” Id. was e nt i r el y a ppr o pr i at e unde r the c i r cumst an ce s an d ca nno t r ea so nabl y b e co ns tr ue d a s ev i nc i nga m ali ci o us i ntent. I nd eed , t he r eco rd pro vi des affi rm ati ve evi dence that Offi cerPrine was proc eedi ng i n a pr ofess i onal m an ne r t o a cc o m pl i sh a di ffi cul t ta ski n a da ng er o us si tu at i o n. M r. Fo rr estm ain ta i ns, however, thatwe shoul d i nfe r th at O fficer Prine w a s a ng ry and w an ted to harm M r. Fo rr estbe cause M r. Fo rr esthad i m pu gned Offi cer P rin e’s chara cterwith the use ofi nvecti ves. H owever, o n th i s r ec o r d, tha t th eo r y i s whol l y s peculati ve , a nd M r. Forrest i s not en titl ed to s u c h an u ns up p orted i nference. See Sp ring er v. D urflin ger, 518 F.3d 479 , 484 (7th C ir. 2008 ) ( “[ I ] t i s wel l

- set tl ed t h at specul ati on m ay not be used to m anufa ctu re a genui ne i ssue off act. ” ( i nter nal qu otation m ark s om itted ))
. U nlike i n som e cases , w he re the o f fi c e r ’ s r e s po ns e t o the de t a i ne e ’ s i nv e c t i v es su p p or ts the i nfe re nce that the o ffi cerwas angr y when h e e m p loy ed th e t as er , cf. O re m v. Rephan n , 52 3 F
. 3d 442, 446- 47 ( 4th Ci r. 20 08) , ther e i s s i m ply n o such evi dence 8 i n thi s ca se.N o. 09

- 3471 15

M r . F o r r e s t ’ s c o u n s e l a dmi t t e d a to r a l a r g u me n tth a tthe 9 s t at em en twas am bi guous an d a r ea s ona bl e i nt er pre t at i on would be thatM r. For re s twas usin g m ere “s t re ett al k” t o de m a nd tha tthe t a s e r n otbe us e d. Fi nal l y, al though i t i s co ncei vabl e th at M r. Fo rr estwas spe a k i n g l i t e r a l l y wh e n h e t o l d O ffi c e r P r i n e t o g e t th e tas ero ut o fh is fa ce, such a n i nter preta ti on does not c om p or t w ith th e e vid en c e b efo r e u s . T h e re c or d rev ea ls 9 a c h ao tic sc en e in w h ich M r. For re st, pa c in g a b ou t in his cell, had no w ay of know ing p recisely w he re Of fi ce r Pr i ne was aim in g . Ourr ea di ngo fthi s par t o fthe record reveals an intox ic ated , de fi an t, an gry and bell igerent pr etr i aldetai nee s peaki ng ab out the a cti on ofan o f fi ce r ho l di nga t as erde vi ce 7

- 10 feet away whi l e th e o f fi ce r a tt em p ted to c o nv i nc e hi m t o c o m pl y wi ththe pri son’ s i ntake pro cedure. M r. Fo rr est ’s char acte ri zati on of hi s excl am ati on i n thi s si tuati on i s, at best, the sort of sel f

- ser vi ng and uncor ro bor ate d testi m ony by a par ty th at d oes not create a gen uin e d ispu te of fact. M r. Forrest’s “l es s th an d efi ni ti ve k no wl edg e do es no t ca sts uffi ci en t do ubto n wha t th e o ffi ce r r ea so nabl y b el i ev ed atthe ti m e. ” See V

a la nc e v. Wisel , 110 F.3d 126 9, 1 2 7 6 (7th Cir. 1997 ).

Conclusi on A r eadi ng o fthe re cor d rev eal s that Office r Pri ne’ s use o fthe t as er w as a r ea so nabl e, g o o d f ai the ff o r t to mai nta in o r re sto re disc i pli ne w i thi n the j ai l

. There si m plyis no g enui ne i ssue oftr i abl e f act as to wh etherOffi cer16 N o. 09

- 3471 Pri ne’ s deci si on t o em plo y the ta seram ounte d to a vi ol at i o n o f t he Du e Pr o c e s s Cl a us e o f the F o ur t e e nth A m e nd

m ent. Even ta ki n g th e evi dence in the l i ght m ostf avor ab le t o M r. For re st an d d ra w in g all re asonablei nfere nc e s the r e f r o m, n o r e a s o nab l e j ur y wo ul d c o nc l ude that Offi cerPrine fi re d t h e ta serwith a m al i ci ous o r sadi sti c i ntent. A ccor dingl y, we affi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
. A FFI RMED

8- 31- 10