Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22907
| 10th Cir. | 2010Background
- Cavanaughs sued Woods Cross City and Officer Davis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force after a Tasering incident on Dec 8, 2006.
- Police responded to a non-emergency call about Shannon Cavanaugh, who had left home with a kitchen knife amid a domestic dispute.
- Davis discharged a Taser at Cavanaugh’s back without warning as she walked toward her front steps.
- Cavanaugh suffered a traumatic brain injury from the fall after the Taser deployment.
- District court denied qualified immunity to Davis and denied Woods Cross City's summary judgment on unwritten policy; on appeal, the court affirmed.
- The appeal recognized disputed facts but reviewed for legal sufficiency and clearly established law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis’s Taser use violated the Fourth Amendment (objective reasonableness). | Cavanaughs: use of Taser against non-violent, non-threatening individual was excessive. | Davis: actions reasonable given circumstances and threats. | Yes; Taser use was objectively unreasonable under Graham. |
| Whether the law was clearly established against the Taser use in these facts. | Casey precedent showed clearly established rule against such Taser use. | No controlling case precisely on these facts at that time. | Yes; law clearly established as of the incident date. |
| Whether Woods Cross City can be liable under Monell for an unwritten Taser policy. | Unwritten policy causally linked to Davis’s actions. | Policy issue contested; no separate constitutional violation necessary for liability. | Affirmed: City may be liable due to unwritten policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (establishes objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Casey v. City of Federal Heights, 509 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2007) (Taser use on non-violent misdemeanant; clearly established standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (two-step qualified-immunity framework)
- Hobbs ex rel. Hobbs v. Zenderman, 579 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009) (analysis of qualified immunity on appeal)
- Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (cases beyond exact fact patterns can establish clearly established law)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (clarifies clearly established law without identical facts)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (noted for context on excessive-force standards)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step approach to qualified immunity (later modified by Pearson))
- Medina v. Denver, 960 F.2d 1493 (10th Cir. 1992) (on-point considerations for clearly established law)