915 F.3d 1179
8th Cir.2019Background
- On Sept. 27, 2013, David Kasiah attended a concert, engaged in crowd-surfing, and twice bumped a woman who complained to security.
- Off-duty KCPD officers Gilbert Carter and Kevin White were working security for Crowd Systems, Inc.; they observed a potential disturbance and summoned Kasiah over a five-foot barrier.
- Carter grabbed Kasiah, and with White’s assistance began lifting him over the barrier to remove him; White lost his grip, Carter lost balance, and Carter pushed/turned/threw Kasiah as both fell.
- Kasiah landed on his head/shoulder and fractured two cervical vertebrae; Carter ensured medical care and later charged Kasiah with disorderly conduct.
- Kasiah sued (state court, later removed) asserting § 1983 wrongful arrest and excessive-force claims, Missouri state tort claims (assault/battery, negligence), and municipal liability against the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners; district court granted summary judgment for Carter and the Board; Kasiah appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carter used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Kasiah contends the grab, lift, and the subsequent throw were constitutionally excessive and caused his neck injuries | Carter argues each act was objectively reasonable in the circumstances (probable cause, non‑resisting suspect, crowd, need to remove him) | Court: No excessive force; each use of force objectively reasonable |
| Whether Carter is entitled to qualified immunity (clearly established right) | Even if force was unconstitutional, Kasiah argues the unlawfulness was clearly established | Carter asserts no clearly established law makes his conduct unconstitutional under these facts | Court: Qualified immunity applies; plaintiff failed to show clearly established violation |
| Whether Carter is liable under Missouri state tort law (assault/battery, negligence) | Kasiah argues state tort claims should proceed because Carter’s actions were wrongful and possibly malicious | Carter contends he is protected by Missouri official immunity for discretionary law‑enforcement acts absent malice | Court: Official immunity applies; no evidence of malice, so summary judgment for Carter on state tort claims |
| Whether the Board is derivatively liable as a municipality for Carter’s conduct | Kasiah argues municipal liability for failure to train/supervise or policy caused the violation | Board argues liability requires an underlying constitutional violation by Carter (and none exists) | Court: Board not liable because Carter committed no constitutional violation; alternative Monell theories unnecessary to reach |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use of force judged by objective‑reasonableness standard)
- Wenzel v. City of Bourbon, 899 F.3d 598 (8th Cir. 2018) (objective‑reasonableness framework from officer’s perspective)
- Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 899 F.3d 629 (summary judgment reviewed de novo; view facts for nonmoving party)
- Boude v. City of Raymore, 855 F.3d 930 (officer’s use of force and official immunity principles)
- Church v. Anderson, 898 F.3d 830 (officers need not pursue the most prudent course in split‑second decisions)
- Southers v. City of Farmington, 263 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. en banc) (Missouri official immunity protects discretionary acts absent malice)
- Webb v. City of Maplewood, 889 F.3d 483 (municipal liability requires an underlying unconstitutional act)
- Russell v. Hennepin Cty., 420 F.3d 841 (principle that municipality liability depends on employee constitutional violation)