Clayton Franklin v. Franklin County, Arkansas, 956 F.3d 1060

Cody Franklin was arrested after acting bizarrely and taken to the county jail; officers later attempted to move him to an isolation cell after violent, drug-influenced behavior.
During the move and subsequent restraint officers tased Franklin multiple times (possibly up to eight applications, including several drive-stun shocks while handcuffed); officers also used body weight to subdue him.
Franklin was transported to a hospital shortly after the incident and was pronounced dead; the medical examiner listed methamphetamine intoxication, exertion, struggle, restraint, and multiple electro-muscular disruption device applications among the causes.
The estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and under state law for battery and wrongful death; the district court granted summary judgment for municipalities and most officers but denied qualified immunity to two officers (the Griffiths) on federal and state claims.
The Griffiths sought interlocutory appeal arguing qualified immunity; the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether their taser and restraint use violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.
The court concluded the officers’ force was reasonable under governing precedent, reversed as to the federal § 1983 claims (qualified immunity granted), and remanded the state-law claims to the district court for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment	Tasing Franklin multiple times (including drive-stun while handcuffed) and restraining him caused unconstitutional excessive force	Force was reasonable because Franklin was violent, noncompliant, and possibly drug-impaired; threat persisted until final taser application	No constitutional violation; force was reasonable under circumstances
Whether the Griffiths are entitled to qualified immunity on § 1983 excessive-force claims	Denial of immunity was proper because the right was clearly established	Qualified immunity applies because either no constitutional violation or law was not clearly established for these facts	Qualified immunity granted; reversal of district court on federal claims
Disposition of state-law claims (battery, wrongful death) and supplemental jurisdiction	Estate seeks adjudication of state claims	Officers sought resolution only on federal qualified-immunity grounds on appeal	State claims remanded to district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (per curiam) (warns against defining clearly established rights at high level)
Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (per curiam) (similar caution about overly broad definitions of clearly established law)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (per curiam) (‘‘obvious case’’ exception and limits on obviousness of force violations)
Brossart v. Janke, 859 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2017) (repeated taser applications against a defiant arrestee held not obviously excessive)
Zubrod v. Hoch, 907 F.3d 568 (8th Cir. 2018) (up to ten taser applications found reasonable in resisting arrestee context)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (police may continue forceful measures until threat ends)
Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 2003) (no constitutional violation means qualified immunity applies)
LaCross v. City of Duluth, 713 F.3d 1155 (8th Cir. 2013) (taser use on handcuffed detainees permissible in appropriate circumstances)