Danelle Hollingsworth v. City of St. Ann
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15676
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- In July 2009 Danelle Hollingsworth was arrested for stealing inexpensive wine coolers, taken to the St. Ann police station, and placed in a monitored booking/processing room.
- Officers required detainees to change into an orange jumpsuit; Hollingsworth refused to change and asked for a female attendant while she changed.
- Officer McCallum warned Hollingsworth he would Tase her if she did not comply, then deployed a Taser twice (two five-second applications with a pause) after she remained noncompliant; probes struck chest and shoulder and McCallum touched the device to her thigh.
- Hollingsworth reported severe pain, subsequent leg spasms, a hospital visit, and prescription muscle relaxants; the district court treated her injuries as de minimis for qualified-immunity purposes.
- Hollingsworth sued McCallum and two corrections officers (failure-to-intervene) and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment excessive force and Monell municipal liability; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding officers entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in July 2009 that Taser use producing only de minimis injury violated the Fourth Amendment; the City’s Taser policy was not unlawful on its face nor shown to reflect deliberate indifference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCallum's use of a Taser during booking violated the Fourth Amendment as excessive force | Use of a Taser on a nonviolent, secured detainee to coerce clothing change was unreasonable and unconstitutional | Use of some force was justified to enforce a jail safety policy; qualified immunity applies because law was not clearly established on de minimis-injury Taser claims | Denied: qualified immunity for McCallum because, in July 2009, precedent did not clearly establish that Taser use causing only de minimis injury violated the Fourth Amendment |
| Whether corrections officers King and Mayberry are liable for failing to intervene | They observed or should have known Taser use was excessive and could have prevented it | Qualified immunity since excessive force was not clearly established; no clear duty to intervene under then-current law | Denied: qualified immunity for King and Mayberry because no clearly established right was violated when McCallum acted |
| Whether the City of St. Ann is liable under Monell for its Taser policy or training | City policy authorized Taser use until compliance and/or training condoned coercive use, showing deliberate indifference | Policy allowed officer discretion, disavowed punishment/coercion, and did not direct the challenged use; no pattern showing deliberate indifference | Denied: no municipal liability — policy was not unlawful on its face and plaintiff failed to show deliberate indifference or causation |
| Whether de minimis-injury rule bars excessive-force claims from Taser applications | (Plaintiff) Taser can inflict extreme pain and medical effects; de minimis rule should not shield officers | (Defendants) Eighth Circuit precedent treated Taser applications producing only de minimis physical injury as not clearly unconstitutional at that time | Held for defendants: LaCross and related Eighth Circuit authority meant it was not clearly established in 2009 that Taser-caused de minimis injuries could support Fourth Amendment liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or deliberate indifference)
- LaCross v. City of Duluth, 713 F.3d 1155 (8th Cir. 2013) (not clearly established that Taser use producing only de minimis injury violated the Fourth Amendment)
- Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 2009) (officer violated clearly established rights by tasing a nonviolent, nonfleeing misdemeanant in certain circumstances)
- Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2011) (Fourth Amendment governs excessive-force claims during booking/initial detention)
- Hickey v. Reeder, 12 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 1993) (Eighth Amendment context: using stun device on nonviolent inmate for housekeeping order was unconstitutional)
- City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765 (U.S. 2015) (requiring that precedent place the constitutional question "beyond debate" to overcome qualified immunity)