Chambers v. Pennycook, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11392

Chambers sued three officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment excessive force during arrest and after arrest during transport to a hospital.
The incident occurred August 4, 2005, at Chambers's stepdaughter's apartment, where Kelling observed Chambers until arrest and the other two entered after arrest.
Chambers alleges Kelling kicked him, pressed his foot on his back, and planted a glass pipe; he alleges Van Mierlo and Pennycook drove erratically and choked/kicked him during transport.
Chambers reported back pain; hospital notes described back contusion with no acute injury; doctors found no fractures and released him.
District court dismissed all federal claims as based on de minimis injuries; the Eighth Circuit initially affirmed in part and remanded, then the district court granted summary judgment for the officers.
This appeal concerns whether excessive force requires more than de minimis injury and whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a de minimis injury defeats Fourth Amendment excessive force claims.	Chambers argues injury level is not dispositive for excess.	Officers contend only de minimis injury is insufficient to show a constitutional violation.	No, injury level alone is not dispositive; the force must be objectively reasonable.
Whether the right was clearly established given the injury level at the time.	The law did not allow de minimis injuries to foreclose liability.	At the time, a reasonable officer could rely on de minimis injury as a boundary.	Officers entitled to qualified immunity under the then-existing law.
Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on summary judgment during an ongoing interlocutory appeal.	Appeal pending prevented district court from ruling on dispositive motions.	The challenged rulings were not aspects of the appeal; jurisdiction remained with the district court.	The circuit retained jurisdiction to decide the summary judgment motions.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (established objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
Andrews v. Fuoss, 417 F.3d 813 (8th Cir.2005) (open question on minimum injury in Fourth Amendment excessive force claims)
Wertish v. Krueger, 433 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir.2006) (minor injuries can still be part of excessive force inquiry)
Curd v. City Court, 141 F.3d 839 (8th Cir.1998) (de minimis injuries do not automatically preclude claim; but context matters)
Hanig v. Lee, 415 F.3d 822 (8th Cir.2005) (handcuffing can constitute excessive force only with more than minor injury)
Kukla v. Hulm, 310 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir.2002) (arrestee's right to be free from excessive force precedes injury magnitude)
Wilson v. Spain, 209 F.3d 713 (8th Cir.2000) (application of Fourth Amendment post-arrest incidents)
Moore v. Novak, 146 F.3d 531 (8th Cir.1998) (post-arrest detention excessive force framework)
Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir.2002) (comparative discussion on force versus injury)