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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 8- 20 61

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

Kath y Fis ch er

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Jo sh Hov en , in hi s i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty; Barry Hill es ta d, i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty;
D a y C o u n t y , a S o u t h D a k o t a p o l i t i c a l s u

b d i vis i o n , i t s a g e n t s , s u

b s i d i a r i e s a n d e m p l o y e e s

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

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Abe rd een

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 3, 2 01 9
Fi le d: Ju ne 3, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Kath y Fi sc he r su ed Dep ut y Jo sh ua J. Hov en , Sh eri ff Barr y Hil le st ad

, an d Day

Co un ty un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. The di st ric t co u r t g r a n t e d qu al ifi ed im m un it y to 1

The Hon or ab le Ch arl es B. Ko r nm an n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

.Hov en , an d su m m ary jud gm en t to Hil le st ad an d th e Co un ty. Fi sc her v. Ho ven , 20 18

W L 2 01 29 08 (D.S.D. Apr. 3 0, 2 01 8) . Havi ng juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

, th is co ur t af

fir m s.

I.

A f t e r sh ari ng al m os t th ree bo tt le s of win e, Fi sc he r an d he r fri en d, Su sa n

C l yn i c k, wen t to th e And ov er Bar. Bo th were in to xi cat ed

. The ba r own er ha d

pr ev io us ly to ld Cl y ni ck sh e was no t al lo wed in th e ba r. W he n th ey arri ve d, th e own er

req ue st ed sh e le av e. Sh e ref us ed . He call ed th e p ol ic e to ha ve he r rem ov ed

.

Arri vi ng , Dep ut y Hov en as ke d Cl y ni ck to le av e. Sh e ag reed to acco m pa ny hi m

ou ts id e. At he r req ue st

, he wen t ba ck in si de to te ll Fi sc he r th at Cl y ni ck ha d to le av e.

Fi sc he r fo ll owe d Hov en ou ts id e whe re Cl y ni ck was wait in g. Fi sc he r y el le d at Hov en

th at th ey ha d a rig ht to be in th e ba r, th en wen t ba ck in si de to co m pl ai n to th e own er.

Due to he r in to xi cat io n, sh e do es no t rem em be r go in g ou ts id e wit h Hov en , or go in g
ba ck in si de

. Out si de

, Cl y ni ck an d Hov en co nt in ue d to ta lk un ti l th e own er cam e ou t

an d a sk ed Hov en to rem ov e Fi sc he r fro m th e b ar.

Ret ur ni ng in si de

, Hov en to ld Fi sc he r th e own er wan te d he r to le av e. Sh e

y el le d th at sh e wou ld no t le av e an d walk ed ou ts id e to th e ba r pa ti o. Hov en fo ll owe d,

req ue st in g a se co nd ti m e th at sh e le av e. Sh e di d no t ob ey

. Grab bi ng he r arm , he pu t

he r in an “ es co rt” po si ti on an d walk ed he r ou ts id e to ward hi s ve hi cl e. Sh e co nt in ue d

t o ye l l

, b u t di d no t res is t. Fi sc he r reca ll s ta lk in g to Hov en on th e pa ti o an d as ki n g

hi m why he was “ ta l k i n g so m ean to m e.” Sh e do es no t rem em be r an y th in g th at

ha pp en ed aft er t ha t.

Onc e ou ts id e , Fi sc he r an d Cl y ni ck be ga n walk in g away fro m th e ba r at

Hov en ’s in st ru ct io n. Fi sc he r th en tu rn ed aro un d and w al ke d tow ar d H ov en , “ fla il in g”

he r arm s an d y el li ng at hi m ab ou t be in g rem ov ed fro m th e ba r. Sh e go t cl os e to hi m

-2

-an d pu t he r le ft ha nd on hi s rig ht sh ou ld er. Grab bi ng he r le ft arm , Hov en pl aced he r

in an es co rt po si ti on ag ai ns t hi s ve hi cl e a n d an no un ced sh e was un de r arre st fo r
di so rd erl y co nd uc t. Sh e co nt in ue d to y el l at hi m

. Cl y ni ck th en cam e to ward Hov en

. He st ep pe d to ward he r wit h hi s rig ht ha nd ex te nd ed in to he r sh ou ld er. Sh e fel l to th e

gr ou nd

.

Hov en ha d hi s le ft ha nd on Fi sc he r’s wris t, wit h he r arm be hi nd he r ba ck

. He

reac he d fo r hi s ha nd cu ffs

. Sh e tu rn ed to he r le ft to ward hi m

. He ex ecu te d an arm -b ar

ta ke do wn, pu tt in g h i s rig ht ha nd on he r tri cep ab ov e th e el bo w an d be lo w th e
sh ou ld er. Fi sc he r la nd ed face -fi rs t on th e gr ou nd

. Sh e su ffer ed a faci al cu t, br ok en

no se , bro ke n t oo th , and bro ke n b on es in he r ri gh t ar m an d h an d.

Fi sc he r su ed Hov en f

o r ex ces si ve fo rce. Sh e al so su ed Sh eri ff Hil le st ad an d
Day Co u nt y fo r fai lu re to tra in an d su pe rv is e. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to Hov en , Hil le s t a d

, an d Day Co un ty. Fi sc he r ap pe al s he r cl ai m ag ai ns t

Hov en for ex ces si ve for ce. 2

II.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de n o v o th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on th e ba si s of

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y , vi ewin g th e r eco rd m os t fav or ab ly to th e no nm ov in g pa rty.

Mo or e-J on es v. Quic k

, 90 9 F.3 d 98 3, 98 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). Hov en is en ti tl ed to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y un le ss Fi sc he r can sh ow: (1 ) th at he “ vi ol at ed a st at ut or y or

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

, an d (2 ) th at th e rig ht was ‘clear ly es ta bl is he d’ at th e ti m e of th e

ch al le ng ed co nd uc t.” As hcr of t v. al -Ki dd

, 56 3 U.S. 73 1, 73 5 (2 01 1)

, qu ot in g Ha rl ow

v. Fi tz ge ra ld , 45 7 U.S. 8 00 , 81 8 (1 98 2)

.

On ap pe al

, Fi sc he r waiv es he r fai lu re to t r a i n a n d su pe rv is e cl ai m s ag ai ns t 2

Hil le st ad an d Day Cou nt y

.

-3

-Fi sc he r cl ai m s Hov en ’s us e o f fo rce v io la te d h er Fo ur th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o

be free fro m

ex ces si ve for ce. The tes t fo r a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n is “ whe th er th e

am ou nt of fo rce us ed was ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le un de r th e pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces .”

Mo nt oy a v. Ci ty of Fl

an dr ea u , 6 6 9 F.3 d 86 7, 87 0– 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Object iv e

reas on ab le ne ss is “

jud ge d fro m th e pe rs pe ct iv e of a reas on ab le of fic er on th e sc en e,”

in li gh t of th e “ th e se ve rit y of th e cri m e at is su e, whe th er t h e s u s p 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 , an d whe th er [s ]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 fli gh t.” Gra ha m v. Co nno r , 49 0 U.S.

38 6, 39 6 (1 98 9)

, ci ti ng Tennes se e v. Gar ner , 47 1 U.S. 1, 8– 9 (1 98 5) ; Terr y v. Ohio

, 39 2 U.S. 1, 20 –2 2 (1 96 8)

. The de gr ee of in jury su ffer ed m ay al so be rel ev an t to sh ow

th e am ou nt an d t y

pe of f or ce u se d. Mo nt

oy a , 66 9 F .3d at 8 71

.

Fi sc he r arg ue s Hov en ’s us e of fo rce was ex ces si ve be cau s e s h e w a s no t

res is ti ng arre st or a tt em

pt in g t o fl ee, d id no t co m m it a vi ol en t or se rio us cri m e, an d

di d no t p os e a th reat to th e sa fet y of Hov en or ot he rs

. Se e Br ow n v. Ci ty of Gol de n

V al le y , 57 4 F.3 d 49 1, 49 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (“ [F]orc e is le as t ju s t i fie d ag ai ns t

no nv io le nt m is de m ean an ts who do no t fle e or act iv el y res is t arre st an d po se li tt le or

no t h r e a t t o th e se cu rit y of th e of fic ers or th e pu bl ic .”). Sh e rel ie s on se ve ral cas es
whe re th is co ur t de ni ed su m m ary jud gm en t be cau se of ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al fact

whe th er th e of

fic ers us ed ex ces s iv e fo rce ag ai ns t a no nv io le nt m is de m ean an t. Se e

Sm al l v. McC ry st al , 70 8 F .3d 99 7, 1 00 5– 06 (8t h Ci r. 20 13 ); Mo nt oy a , 6 69 F.3 d at

87 1– 72 ; Sha nno n v. Ko ehl er , 61 6 F.3 d 8 5 5

, 8 6 2 –6 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Lik e th e

in di vi du al s in th es e cas es , F is ch er was a m i s d e mea n a nt who su ffer ed m or e th an de

m in im is in

juri es

. Se e Sm al

l

, 70 8 F.3 d at 10 05 ; Mo nt oy a , 66 9 F.3 d at 87 2; Sha nno n , 61 6 F .3d at 8 59 , 86 3.

Th e c a s es , ho wev er, are fact ua ll y di st in gu is ha bl e. Fi rs t, in Mon to ya an d

Sh an no n , th e of

fic ers an d s u sp ect s pr es en te d di ffer in g fact ua l acco un ts

, crea ti ng

ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al fact

. Se e M o n t o y a , 66 9 F.3 d at 87 2 (“ W hi le a jury m ay

cred it Offi cer Hoo pe r’s ch arac te riz at io n of th e in ci d e n t a n d di sb el ie ve Mo nt oya at

-4

-tri al

, it is no t ou r fu nc ti on to rem ov e th e cred ib i li ty as se ss m en t fro m th e jury.”);

Sha nno n , 6 16 F.3 d at 86 2 (“ The [di st ric t] cou rt a ls o fo un d t ha t t he re were ge nu in e
d is pu te s ab ou t whe th er Sh an no n po ke d Offi cer Koe hl er in th e ch es t an d ab o u t t h e

se ve rit y of th e in

juri es th at Sh an no n su ffer ed

. . . .”). B e c a us e Fi sc he r co ul d no t

rem em be r m os t of he r in te ract io ns wit h Hov en —an d th us di d no t pr es en t a di ffer en t

ve rs io n o f t h e f

a c ts —t he re is no fact ua l di sp ut e in th is cas e. Seco nd

, vi ewin g th e

fact s fav or ab ly t o th e no nm ov in g pa rty, t he of fic ers in Fi sc he r’s cas e s di d no t ha ve

a reas on ab le be li ef th e su sp ect s were res is ti ng arre st or po se d an y sa fet y th reat

. Se e

Sm al l

, 70 8 F.3 d at 10 05 –0 6 (ta ck li ng no nv io le nt m is de m ean an t who was no t a th reat

an d di d no t res is t or fle e was ex ces si ve ); Mo nt oy a , 66 9 F.3 d at 87 1– 72 (le g swe ep

ex ces si ve on no nv io le n t mi sd em ean an t who was no t th reat en in g an y on e, act iv el y

res is ti ng arre st

, or at te m

pt in g t o fl ee); Sha nno n , 61 6 F.3d at 86 2– 63 (u nr eas on ab le

to em pl oy ta ke do wn m an eu ve r on no nv io le nt m is de m ean an t who was no t th reat en in g

an y on e o r res is ti ng arre st ).

Here, vi ewin g th e fact s fav or ab ly t o Fi sc he r, a reas on ab le of fic er co ul d ha ve
be li ev ed Fi sc he r was res is ti ng arre st an d po se d a th reat to hi s sa fet y

. Hov en face d a

te ns e, un pr e d i c t a bl e si tu at io n— th e on ly of fic er on th e sc en e wit h two ho st il e,

in to xi cat ed in di vi du al s. Se e Co ok v. Ci ty of Bel la V il la

, 58 2 F.3 d 84 0, 84 9– 51 (8 th

C i r

. 20 09 ) (o ffi cer faci ng fo ur in to xi cat ed

, no n- co m pl ia nt in di vi du al s jus ti fie d in

us in g fo rce ag ai ns t in di vi du al who st ep p e d t o ward hi m ); Ma rv in v. Ci ty of Tay lo r , 50 9 F .3d 23 4, 24 6 (6 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (fo rce was ob jecti ve ly reaso na bl e p art ly becau se

th e in di vi du al ’s “ he av y in to xi cat io n creat ed a vo la ti le si tu at io n” ); Wi ls on v. Fl ynn , 42 9 F

. 3 d 4 6 5

, 46 8 (4 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (co ns id eri ng su sp ect ’s i nt ox ic at io n to de te rm in e
whe th er he po se d a th reat to th e sa fet y of of fic ers an d ot he rs ). Fi s c h e r i g n or ed hi s

or de rs to le av e th e b a r an d y el le d at hi m se ve ral ti m es

. W al ki ng away, sh e tu rn ed

aro un d an d cam e cl os e en ou gh to to uc h hi s sh ou ld er. Afte r he pu t he r in to an es co rt

po si ti on an d an no un ced sh e was un de r arre st , C lynic k ap pr oa ch ed hi m an d Fi sc he r

tu rn ed to ward hi m

. Fi sc he r cl ai m s sh e was tu rn in g aro un d to se e wha t hap pe ne d to

-5

-Cl y ni ck

. An arre st ee’s su bjec ti ve m ot iv e, ho wev er, “ do es no t be ar on ho w reas on ab le

of fic ers wou ld ha ve in te rp ret ed [h er] be ha vi or .” Ehl er s v. Ci ty of Ra

p i d C i t y , 84 6

F

. 3 d 10 02

, 10 11 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). It was reas on ab le fo r Hov en to vi ew Fi s c h e r ’s

c o n d u c t as res is ta nc e an d a th reat to hi s sa fet y , jus ti fy in g th e us e of fo rce. S e e

Par ri sh v. Ding m an , 91 2 F.3 d 46 4, 46 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 19 ) (u se of fo rce jus ti fie d whe re

de ta in ee co ul d be vi ewed as pa ss iv el y res is ti ng an d th reat to of fic er’s sa fet y ); Ehl

er s , 84 6 F.3 d at 10 11 (u se of fo rce pe rm is si bl e on res is ta nt arre st ee); Sha nno n , 61 6 F.3 d

at 86 3 (“ [T]here can be no do ub t th at of fic ers are pe rm it te d to us e fo rce whe n th ei r

sa fet y is th reat en ed .”).

The am ou nt of fo rce was ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

. Hov en em pl oyed an arm -b ar

ta ke do wn to res tra in an d h an dc uf f Fi sc he r. Sh e su ffer ed se rio us in juri es , in cl ud in g
br ok en bo ne s in he r ha nd

, arm , an d no se ; a br ok en t o o t h ; an d a faci al cu t. Se e

Mo nt oy a , 66 9 F.3 d at 87 2 (“ [T]he se ve rit y of th e in juri es sh e su st ai ne d is a rel ev an t

fact or in de te rm in in g th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e fo rce us ed .”). Hov en m ig ht ha ve us ed

le ss fo rce to se cu re Fi sc he r

. Howev er, th is co ur t vi ews Hov en ’s act io ns “ fro m th e

pe rs pe ct iv e of a reas on ab le of fic er on th e sc en e, rat he r th an wit h th e 20 /2 0 vi si on of

hi nd si gh t,” reco gn iz in g th at “ of fic ers are o f

t e n f o rced to m ak e sp li t-s eco nd
jud gm en ts —i n ci rcu m st an ces th at are te ns e, un cert ai n, an d rap id ly ev ol vi ng —ab ou t

th e am ou nt of fo rce th at is ne ces sa ry in a pa rti cu la r si tu at io n.” Gra ha m , 49 0 U.S. at

39 6– 97

, ci ti ng Te r ry , 39 2 U.S. at 20 –2 2. The arm -b ar ta ke do wn is a “ co m m on

te ch ni qu e to res tra in in di vi du al s.” Par ri sh , 91 2 F .3d at 4 68

. Bec au se a reas on ab le

of fic er co ul d pe rcei ve Fi sc he r as a res is ta nt arre st ee who th r e a t e n e d hi s sa fet y , Hov en ’s u se of

th e arm -b ar t ak ed own was o bjec ti ve ly reaso na bl e. Se e id

. (arm -b ar

ta ke do wn no t ex ces si ve whe re de t ai ne e tu rn ed to ward op en cel l do or ho ld in g a

m at tre ss ); Ehl

er s , 84 6 F.3 d at 10 11 (ta ke do wn ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le on no nv io le nt

m is de m ean an t wh o “ at lea st ap pe ared to be res is ti ng ” b y ig no rin g o ffi cer’s o rd ers ).

-6

-Bec au se Ho v e n ’s us e of fo rce was ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le un de r th e
ci rcu m st an ces , he di d no t vi ol at e th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t an d is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed

im m un it y . Sum m ary jud gm en t was pro pe r.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-7

-