Opinion ID: 2755743
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Kansas Tort Act Claims

Text: Ms. Simpson challenges the grant of summary judgment to Trooper Brame concerning her state-law claims for false imprisonment, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. These challenges are rejected.
The district court granted summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim, holding that trooper Brame enjoyed immunity under the Kansas Tort Claims Act. We agree with this ruling. The Kansas statute provides immunity for discretionary decisions. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-6104(e). Trooper Brame’s decision to arrest Ms. Simpson was discretionary because it involved “personal deliberation, decision and judgment.” Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 238 P.3d 278, 287 - 15 - (Kan. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, his decision to make the arrest involved immunity under Kansas law. Ms. Simpson argues that Trooper Brame’s actions fell outside the immunity because he acted without legal justification. We have already rejected this assertion in the context of the Fourth Amendment claim. According to Ms. Simpson, Trooper Brame had no legal justification to use force to effectuate the arrest. She refers to various instances of the use of force, all of which she contends were unauthorized. In discussing the Fourth Amendment claim, we concluded that the trooper’s use of force was reasonable. For the false-imprisonment claim, the test is again the reasonableness of the trooper’s force. See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5227(a) (“[An] officer is justified in the use of any force which such officer reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and the use of any force which such officer reasonably believes to be necessary to defend the officer’s self or another from bodily harm while making the arrest.”). For the reasons discussed earlier, we conclude that the force was reasonable as a matter of law. Thus, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the trooper on the false-imprisonment claim. - 16 -
The district court also granted the trooper summary judgment on the battery claim, reasoning in part that the use of force was privileged. Ms. Simpson has not meaningfully addressed this rationale. She states in a conclusory heading that the district court “erred in finding . . . that Appellee Brame’s actions were reasonable.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 22. But, she has not developed an argument for this heading. Aplt. App. at 192; see Aplt. Opening Br. at 22-23. Rather than address the deficiency in her evidence, Ms. Simpson focuses on the sufficiency of her complaint. Id. Based on that focus, we consider whether Ms. Simpson presented evidence concerning the trooper’s allegation of privilege through the use of reasonable force. In discussing the battery claim, Ms. Simpson did not develop an argument on this issue. Thus, she waived the issue. See Molina v. Holder, 763 F.3d 1259, 1263 n.2 (10th Cir. 2014). In light of this waiver, we uphold the award of summary judgment to the trooper on the battery claim. - 17 - 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 5 The district court also determined that Ms. Simpson could not create a fact-issue on a claim involving intentional infliction of emotional distress. We agree. This claim requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was “extreme and outrageous,” meaning that it “goes beyond the bounds of decency and is utterly intolerable in a civilized society.” Valadez v. Emmis Commc’ns, 229 P.3d 389, 394 (Kan. 2010). Ms. Simpson argues that Trooper Brame’s conduct met this standard because once he issued a citation and left the vehicle, he could not make an arrest without evidence of a new criminal act. But, we have already rejected this assertion in our analysis of probable cause. Under the circumstances, Trooper Brame’s decision to arrest Ms. Simpson fares no better as evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct. She also argues that Trooper Brame’s actions were “extreme and outrageous” because she had three small children in the car, the car was still in gear, and the children saw the entire episode. Aplt. Opening Br. at 24. We disagree. Trooper Brame’s concern for the children’s safety led to the traffic stop and issuance of a traffic citation. When the car began to 5 In the complaint, Ms. Simpson included claims involving intentional infliction of emotional distress (for herself) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (for her children). The complaint was superseded by the final pretrial order, which omitted claims involving negligent infliction of emotional distress. - 18 - roll away, he helped to stop it. The actions the children witnessed were at least in part a function of Ms. Simpson’s efforts to resist arrest, which required the additional use of force. The district court properly determined that the alleged facts did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct.