938 F.3d 966
8th Cir.2019Background:
- July 23, 2013: JPD Officer Billy D. Stair responded to a disturbance involving Charles Jackson at a tire shop; Jackson was loudly agitated about alleged vehicle damage.
- Stair ordered Jackson to stop, keep hands out of pockets, and turn around; Jackson repeatedly refused, pointed, shouted, demanded badge number, and threatened to complain.
- When Officer Kenneth Harness attempted to handcuff Jackson, Jackson turned toward Harness and raised a right fist near Harness’s head; Stair deployed his Taser (first tasing), dropping Jackson to the ground.
- Moments later Stair deployed the Taser a second time while Jackson lay on his back; after repeated orders to lie prone and stop moving, Stair deployed the Taser a third time when Jackson rose toward the officers; Jackson was then handcuffed and arrested for disorderly conduct.
- Jackson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Stair (individual and official capacity), the City of Jacksonville, and the Jacksonville Police Department, alleging First and Fourth Amendment violations and municipal liability; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and Jackson appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal liability (Monell) | City is liable because Stair’s conduct reflected a policy/custom or deliberate indifference to training/supervision | City had lawful policies, provided Taser and force training, and investigated/took corrective action (written warning, retraining) | Affirmed for City — no evidence of policy/custom or deliberate indifference |
| First Amendment retaliation | Jackson was detained and punished for loud/profane speech | Officer regulated non‑speech conduct (threatening/violent behavior); safety—not retaliation—motivated actions | Affirmed for Stair — no First Amendment violation |
| Excessive force (Fourth Amendment) | All three tasings were excessive; especially the second while Jackson was on ground | Use of force was objectively reasonable given safety concerns and Jackson’s noncompliance/threats | Split: first and third tasings objectively reasonable; second tasing raises genuine fact issue and may be excessive; remanded on second tasing |
| Qualified immunity | Stair not immune if second tasing violated clearly established rights | Stair asserts qualified immunity because actions were reasonable | First/third tasing: no violation so immunity unnecessary; second tasing: if excessive, right was clearly established and immunity would not apply — remand to decide |
Key Cases Cited:
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective‑reasonableness standard for excessive‑force claims)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability for official policy, custom, or deliberate indifference)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity framework)
- Smith v. Conway County, 759 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2014) (second tasing can be unreasonable if detainee no longer poses threat)
- Corwin v. City of Independence, MO., 829 F.3d 695 (8th Cir. 2016) (elements of Monell municipal liability)
- U.S. v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1968) (speech/nonspeech balancing when conduct combines both)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. 2002) (clarity required for clearly established rights in qualified immunity analysis)
- Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 2009) (two‑step qualified immunity inquiry)