Clark, Noah v. Tucker, Austin
3:22-cv-00372
W.D. Wis.May 3, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Noah Clark brought a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Austin Tucker, a Washburn County Sheriff’s deputy.
- Tucker did not respond to the lawsuit, and the court entered default judgment against him.
- The incident arose when Tucker fired multiple beanbags at Clark during an arrest, causing severe injuries requiring surgery and ongoing medical care.
- Clark demonstrated significant lasting physical and mental health consequences, including ongoing nerve pain and loss of ability to work in his previous capacity.
- Clark requested damages for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, providing testimony and documentation at a January 30, 2024 evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Clark's Argument | Tucker's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction and Service | Court has jurisdiction and Tucker was properly served via waiver. | None presented | Jurisdiction and service are proper; case proceeds. |
| Liability for Excessive Force | Tucker used excessive force by firing beanbags at close range, resulting in severe injury. | None presented | Default admits allegations; Tucker liable for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. |
| Causation and Damages | Clark’s injuries directly caused by Tucker; entitled to medical, wage, and suffering costs. | None presented | Damages for unpaid medical expenses, past lost wages, and pain and suffering are awarded. |
| Default Judgment Procedure | Sufficient evidence provided for default judgment and SCRA requirements are met. | None presented | Default judgment granted; no bond required under SCRA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arwa Chiropractic, P.C. v. Med-Care Diabetic & Medical Supplies, Inc., 961 F.3d 942 (7th Cir. 2020) (default admission of facts except damages)
- VLM Food Trading Int'l, Inc. v. Illinois Trading Co., 811 F.3d 247 (7th Cir. 2016) (plaintiff must prove entitlement to damages in default)
- In re Catt, 368 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2004) (damages must be certain and causally linked to conduct)
- Myers v. Illinois Central R. Co., 629 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2010) (lay witness limits for medical causation)
- Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001) (expert testimony required for certain medical claims)