Don Ickes v. Craig Grassmyer
704 F. App'x 190
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- On July 18, 2011, Trooper Laskey stopped Don Ickes for speeding (70 mph in a 50 mph construction zone); Ickes drove almost a minute further and stopped in a secluded private driveway.
- Laskey requested license and registration; Ickes refused to hand documents through the window and displayed a plate/registration issued by the self-styled “Embassy of Heaven.”
- Backup arrived; Trooper Grassmyer, familiar with Ickes and aware of prior confrontations, ordered Ickes out. Ickes refused to open the door.
- Laskey broke the passenger-side window, removed and handcuffed Ickes; Ickes was taken to a hospital complaining of chest pain and had minor abrasions; he later was convicted of resisting arrest and related offenses.
- Ickes sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claiming excessive force; the District Court dismissed many claims but allowed excessive-force claims to proceed and later granted summary judgment to defendants; Ickes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether force used during removal and arrest was excessive under the Fourth Amendment | Ickes contended breaking the window, pulling him through glass, tackling, tight handcuffs/seatbelt and other actions constituted excessive force | Officers argued force was objectively reasonable given traffic stop, refusal to comply, fraudulent plate/registration, prior history, secluded location, and safety concerns | Court held force was objectively reasonable as a matter of law and granted summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether plaintiff may challenge his state convictions in this § 1983 action | Ickes sought to litigate validity of convictions as part of his appeal | Defendants relied on Heck/Preiser to bar collateral attack via § 1983 | Court held those conviction-challenge claims not properly raised and barred by Heck/Preiser |
| Whether statute-of-limitations defense barred the § 1983 claim | Ickes argued claims timely; defendants raised SOL only in their answer | Defendants claimed SOL barred the suit | Court declined to consider SOL defense on appeal because it was not properly presented to the district court |
| Whether particular uses of minimal force (tight handcuffs, seatbelt, pushing in vehicle) violated the Fourth Amendment | Ickes argued these were excessive and caused injury | Defendants maintained these were limited, related to arrest, and resulted in only minor injuries | Court held these applications were minimal and objectively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (set objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (civil suit seeking to undermine conviction barred unless conviction invalidated)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (state-court remedies required for challenges to imprisonment/convictions)
- Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 2004) (summary judgment appropriate where force objectively reasonable as matter of law)
- Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810 (factors to weigh in excessive-force analysis)
- Eid v. Thompson, 740 F.3d 118 (issues not raised below are forfeited on appeal)