Opinion ID: 867998
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: Officer Shane Prickett of the Florence City Police Department used a Taser on Lara Roosevelt-Hennix while Roosevelt-Hennix’s hands were cuffed behind her back and she was seated in the back seat of a police car. Roosevelt-Hennix brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Prickett subjected her to excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388, 395 (1989) (holding the Fourth Amendment “governs a free citizen’s claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of his person”). 1 Prickett argued he was entitled to qualified immunity. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201-02 (2001) (holding a defendant officer is immune from suit 1 The question whether a particular application of force violates the Fourth Amendment is one of reasonableness. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388, 396-97 (1989). In determining whether the use of force is reasonable, a court must pay “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Id. at 396. We focus on “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.” Id. As set out more fully below, it is unnecessary to apply the Graham standard because Prickett has not asserted an entitlement to qualified immunity under the set of facts this court must assume in resolving this appeal. -2- asserting excessive force unless “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted”). The district court denied qualified immunity in an brief oral ruling at the conclusion of the hearing on Prickett’s summary judgment motion. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.