Charles McManemy v. Bruce Tierney, 970 F.3d 1034

Background

Deputies pursued Charles McManemy after suspecting a drug delivery; he led them on a ~10-minute high-speed chase across highways, gravel roads, and a private farm and did not stop for lights/siren.
Deputies rammed McManemy’s vehicle; when it was disabled he emerged, lay face down with limbs spread, and a struggle ensued while deputies attempted to handcuff him.
Dash-cam footage shows McManemy flailing his legs and admits he failed to comply with commands; six deputies and two interlocked sets of handcuffs were required to subdue him.
McManemy alleges Deputy Dolleslager tased him up to five times (taser log shows two discharges) and Deputy Tierney repeatedly kneed his head/eye, causing bruising and later vision issues.
McManemy brought § 1983 excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims; the district court granted summary judgment to the deputies on federal claims (qualified immunity) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed as to the taser and failure-to-intervene claims, and held the knee-to-head claim failed because the right was not clearly established; it also affirmed declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of taser (Dolleslager) — excessive force	Dolleslager tased McManemy multiple times, including while handcuffed; excessive and unnecessary	Taser was used to subdue a resisting suspect; device logs show only two 3-second discharges	Qualified immunity: no violation — two discharges were reasonable given resistance and struggle
Failure to intervene re: taser (Lubben)	Lubben failed to stop Dolleslager’s excessive taser use	No duty because Dolleslager’s use was constitutional	Dismissed — no liability when no constitutional violation occurred
Knee to head (Tierney) — excessive force	Tierney repeatedly kneed McManemy’s head/eye after subdued, causing injury	Video is inconclusive; facts do not show clearly established law for such force here	Qualified immunity: denied that right was clearly established; summary judgment for Tierney affirmed (majority)
Failure to intervene re: knee (other deputies)	Other deputies should be liable for not preventing Tierney’s alleged gratuitous blows	They lacked fair notice because Tierney’s conduct wasn’t clearly established as unlawful	Dismissed — no duty to intervene when underlying use not clearly established
Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims	Plaintiff wanted federal court to decide state claims on merits	Defendants preferred dismissal without prejudice; district court declined jurisdiction	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in remanding/dismissing state claims without prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (establishes objective-reasonableness Fourth Amendment test for force)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence can ‘blatantly contradict’ plaintiff’s account on summary judgment)
Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) (must draw inferences for nonmoving party when defining force context)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (need for closely analogous precedent to defeat qualified immunity)
Ehlers v. City of Rapid City, 846 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2017) (tasing an uncuffed, resisting suspect can be reasonable)
Brossart v. Janke, 859 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2017) (drive‑stun use near the end of a struggle can be reasonable)
Gill v. Maciejewski, 546 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 2008) (knee to head causing severe injuries was excessive force when arrestee was nonresisting)
Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 2009) (gratuitous force against fully subdued, nonresisting arrestee violates clearly established law)
Blazek v. City of Iowa City, 761 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2014) (gratuitous violence against handcuffed, subdued suspect violates Fourth Amendment)
Tokar v. Armontrout, 97 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 1996) (court may rely on plaintiff admissions in qualified immunity analysis)