Opinion ID: 1196435
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: William's Excessive Force Claim

Text: In granting summary judgment, the district court found Chief Locke's conduct during William's arrest was objectively reasonable as a matter of law, even accepting as true William's allegations that Chief Locke applied the handcuffs too tightly and kneed William when placing him in the patrol car. The district court further reasoned, The absence of any substantial injury arising from the alleged `excessive force,' coupled with William's ability to independently exit and stand outside the patrol car, and his refusal of same-day medical treatment supported the court's finding. We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Reed v. City of St. Charles, 561 F.3d 788, 790 (8th Cir.2009) (citation omitted). We will affirm if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). We analyze Fourth Amendment excessive force claims under a reasonableness standard to determine whether, in light of the facts and circumstances, the officer's actions were objectively reasonable. Gill v. Maciejewski, 546 F.3d 557, 562 (8th Cir.2008) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989)). [T]he right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22-27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). [W]hile this court has stated `[i]t remains an open question in this circuit whether an excessive force claim requires some minimum level of injury,' a de minimus use of force or injury is insufficient to support a finding of a constitutional violation. Crumley v. City of St. Paul, 324 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir.2003) (quoting and citing Hunter v. Namanny, 219 F.3d 825, 831 (8th Cir.2000)). Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to William, we agree with the district court that Chief Locke's actions during William's arrest were objectively reasonable. Chief Locke's de minimus use of force under these circumstances is insufficient to rise to the level of a Fourth Amendment violation. While William alleges he suffered back pain as a result of the arrest, (1) William did not inform Chief Locke of William's prior back injury before Chief Locke placed William in the patrol car; (2) William refused treatment from the paramedics when Chief Locke called an ambulance after learning of the back pain; and (3) other than William's deposition testimony that he sought medical care the day after the arrest, William presented no medical evidence establishing a physical injury as a result of the arrest. See Wertish v. Krueger, 433 F.3d 1062, 1067 (8th Cir.2006) (citations omitted) (reasoning, relatively minor scrapes and bruises and the less-than-permanent aggravation of a prior shoulder condition were de minimis injuries that support[ed] the conclusion that [the officer] did not use excessive force against an arrestee); Curd v. City Court of Judsonia, 141 F.3d 839, 841 (8th Cir.1998) (citations omitted) (stating, [e]ven if seizing [the arrestee's] arm and turning her body was unnecessary to effect the arrest, we can not conclude that this limited amount of force was objectively unreasonable, especially where there was no allegation or evidence of injury or physical pain); Foster v. Metro. Airports Comm'n, 914 F.2d 1076, 1082 (8th Cir. 1990) (explaining allegations of pain as a result of being handcuffed, without some evidence of more permanent injury, are [not] sufficient to support [a] claim of excessive force). We affirm the district court's summary judgment in favor of Chief Locke. [4]