Cyrus v. Town of Mukwonago
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23284
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Cyrus, a mentally ill 29-year-old, was encountered by police while in a delusional state at a partially built home; he wore only a bathrobe.
- Lt. Czarnecki deployed a Taser at Cyrus, causing him to fall; a second shock followed as Cyrus attempted to rise.
- Czarnecki and another officer struggled to handcuff Cyrus; Taser use continued in drive-stun mode to gain compliance.
- Cyrus stopped breathing after being restrained and was pronounced dead at the hospital.
- District court granted summary judgment finding the use of force reasonable; Estate appeals.
- There are disputed facts about how many Taser deployments occurred and whether those deployments were reasonable under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper given disputed material facts. | Cyrus's death and force were excessive; multiple Tasers used; disputes on the number of shocks. | Initial Taser use was reasonable for safety and to gain compliance; force proportional to threat. | No; material facts disputed; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Whether causation can be proven without expert testimony. | Lay evidence and close temporal proximity support causation. | Causation requires expert testimony to prove excessive-force causation. | Question for the jury remains; causation evidence exists even without full expert unbundling. |
| Whether the officer's actions were objectively reasonable under the totality of circumstances. | Repeated Tasering after unarmed status and handcuffing is excessive. | Initial rationale and perceived threat justified force. | Jury could reasonably conclude force was excessive; summary judgment not appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims)
- Abdullahi v. City of Madison, 423 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2005) (factors include mental illness; totality of circumstances)
- Bell v. Irwin, 321 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment on undisputed material facts may substitute for jury review; caution about disputes later)
- Catlin v. City of Wheaton, 574 F.3d 361 (7th Cir. 2009) (excessive-force cases often involve disputed evidence; not always suited for summary judgment)
- Brownell v. Figel, 950 F.2d 1285 (7th Cir. 1991) (injury alone not proof of excessive force; need specific unreasonable conduct)
- Phillips v. City of Milwaukee, 123 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 1997) (cannot infer excessive force merely from injury; must show specific conduct unreasonable)
- Salem v. U.S. Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31 (1962) (lay testimony may establish causation when primary facts are intelligible to jury)