Bell v. Kansas City Police Department, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5842

Inmate Eric E. Bell, Sr. sues the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD) chief, individual commissioners, and several officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The district court presetively dismissed Bell's claims against the KCPD chief and the individual commissioners.
Bell was denied leave to amend his complaint after the pretrial scheduling order deadline.
Summary judgment was granted to Officer Erick Stucker and to the claim that officers conspired to violate police reporting policy.
Bell alleged discovery violations, including missing videotapes, which the district court did not address in full.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether preservice dismissal was proper	Bell asserts supervisory liability and respondeat superior claims survive.	Defendants contend § 1983 supervisory liability and respondeat superior do not apply.	Yes, dismissal proper for chief and commissioners
Whether Bell should have been allowed to amend	Bell sought to amend to address deficiencies.	No good cause shown to modify scheduling order.	Amendment denial affirmed
Whether summary judgment on Stucker and conspiracy claim was proper	Bell alleges excessive force and policy conspiracy; triable issues exist.	Stucker uninvolved; no conspiracy due to policy reporting failure.	Affirmed for Stucker and for lack of conspiracy claim
Whether there is a genuine dispute on excessive force	Bell was complying with orders; tasering continued after restraint.	Bell disobeyed orders; force reasonable under circumstances.	Triable issue as to Apple and Bryant for excessive force and failure to intervene
Whether remand for discovery violations and appointment of counsel is appropriate	Discovery violations require remedy and appointed counsel consideration.	Not specified; standard procedures apply.	Remand for discovery remedy and reconsideration of appointed counsel

Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir.1996) (standard of review for preservice dismissal)
Vaughn v. Greene Cnty., 438 F.3d 845 (8th Cir.2006) (supervisory liability not implied by respondeat superior)
Pool v. Mo. Dep't of Corr. & Human Res., 883 F.2d 640 (8th Cir.1989) (supervisory liability requirements)
Cook v. City of Bella Villa, 582 F.3d 840 (8th Cir.2009) (de novo review of summary judgment; light in record)
Ellis v. Norris, 179 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir.1999) (involvement in taser case; summary judgment standards)
White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806 (8th Cir.2008) (police policy reporting as a basis for liability)
Neal v. St. Louis Cnty. Bd. Of Police Comm'rs, 217 F.3d 955 (8th Cir.2000) (liability standards for police commissions)
Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (8th Cir.2009) (objective reasonableness of force; multifactor analysis)
Nyari v. Napolitano, 562 F.3d 916 (8th Cir.2009) (courts should not weigh evidence on summary judgment)
Henderson v. Munn, 439 F.3d 497 (8th Cir.2006) (pepper spray on subdued arrestee; excessive force context)
Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557 (8th Cir.2009) (duty to intervene principles)
Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791 (8th Cir.2006) (relevant criteria for appointment of counsel)
Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488 (8th Cir.2008) (good cause required for modifying scheduling order)