Opinion ID: 3000549
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant Officer Sirgedas

Text: Nos. 05-4278 & 05-4590 Page 17 As to defendant Officer Sirgedas, the district court concluded that “[t]he nature of Sirgedas’ use of force—in particular his admitted punching of Gonzalo in the head with a closed fist—requires a jury determination of reasonableness.” District Court Opinion at 40. However, as this court explained in Bell v. Irwin, 321 F.3d 637, 640 (7th Cir. 2003) “when material facts (or enough of them to justify the conduct objectively) are undisputed, then there would be nothing for a jury to do except second-guess the officers, which Graham held must be prevented.” (emphasis in original). In this case, although there are many factual disputes, none are material to the question of whether Officer Sirgedas violated Gonzalo’s Fourth Amendment rights when he struck him with an asp and once in the head. This is a question of reasonableness of force, which is a legal issue, id., and it is reviewable on interlocutory appeal. See supra at 4. Based on the facts as set forth by the district court, we conclude that Officer Sirgedas did not use excessive force when he struck Gonzalo in the leg with an asp and once in the head with a closed first. Specifically, as the district court laid out, Gonzalo fled to the backyard to avoid arrest and resisted arrest. Gonzalo also admitted to struggling with two officers, showing the difficulty they had in subduing him. And while Gonzalo claimed he did not resist arrest to the extent the officers claimed, he admitted resisting arrest by, among other things, biting an officer. We add to those facts the explosive nature of the scene and the need to quickly subdue Gonzalo before he injured the officers or attracted other party guests to join in the struggle. Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Officer Sirgedas acted reasonably in striking Gonzalo on the leg with an asp and once in the head with his fist.7 Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment to defendant Sirgedas on the excessive force claim brought by Gonzalo. 7 Given the unique circumstances of this case, there is a vacuum of analogous case law. Nonetheless, the factors set forth in Graham support our conclusion. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (holding that whether the force used is reasonable “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight”). Alternatively, given the lack of analogous case law, even were we to conclude that Officer Sirgedas used excessive force, he would be entitled to qualified immunity on Gonzalo’s claims because it was not clearly established that his conduct was unreasonable. Nos. 05-4278 & 05-4590 Page 18