Bob Glasscox v. Argo, City Of, etc., 903 F.3d 1207

Plaintiff Bob Glasscox, a Type 1 diabetic, experienced a hypoglycemic episode while driving erratically on an Alabama interstate; Officer David Moses pursued and ultimately stopped his truck in the median.
Officer Moses approached with firearm and taser drawn, ordered Glasscox out; Glasscox unbuckled his seatbelt and repeatedly said he would comply but was tased four times in rapid succession. Body‑cam video captures the interaction.
After the first two tasings, Glasscox’s movements were involuntary and his hands were visible and empty; he repeatedly told the officer “I will” exit the vehicle but was tased two more times before being removed and handcuffed.
Glasscox suffered physical injuries (bleeding from probes) and psychological injury; he was charged criminally and later sued Moses and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force.
The district court converted motions to dismiss into summary‑judgment motions and denied qualified immunity to Officer Moses and summary judgment to the City; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether repeated taser deployments after resistance ceased constituted excessive force	Glasscox: continued tasing after he stopped resisting and attempted to comply was objectively unreasonable	Moses: initial tasings were justified by the dangerous circumstances and perceived resistance; continued force was reasonable	Held: A jury could find force excessive; repeated tasings after the second shock were unjustified and violated the Fourth Amendment
Whether qualified immunity shields Officer Moses	Glasscox: law clearly established that repeated tasings of a non‑resisting arrestee is unlawful	Moses: no clearly established precedent on materially similar facts; fair notice lacking	Held: Law was clearly established (Oliver + Smith and the “obvious clarity” rule); qualified immunity denied
Whether the City may obtain judgment based on no constitutional violation	Glasscox: officer violated constitutional rights, so municipal summary judgment improper	City: relies on officer immunity/no violation	Held: Because a constitutional violation is shown for summary‑judgment purposes, City’s motion properly denied

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness test for excessive‑force claims)
Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) (use‑of‑force reasonableness factors)
Oliver v. Fiorino, 586 F.3d 898 (11th Cir. 2009) (multiple tasings can be excessive; obvious‑clarity denial of qualified immunity)
Smith v. Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416 (11th Cir. 1997) (use of substantial force after arrestee submitted is excessive)
Wate v. Kubler, 839 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2016) (critical time window for assessing repeated tasings)
Manners v. Cannella, 891 F.3d 959 (11th Cir. 2018) (denial of summary judgment where reasonable inferences about force could differ)