Dwain Smith v. Conway County, Arkansas
759 F.3d 853
8th Cir.2014Background
- Dwain Smith, a pretrial detainee with reported back pain and PTSD, was booked into Conway County Jail on Feb 28, 2012; jailers gave ibuprofen but denied prescription meds and medical care.
- Jail administrator Rick Emerson authorized taser use for compliance, posted warnings in the jail, and permitted untrained jailers to obtain and use tasers.
- Jailer Jacob Zulpo (no taser training) and Jansen Choate escorted Smith to a medical observation cell; facts are disputed whether Smith accidentally kicked Zulpo before force was used.
- Zulpo deployed a taser twice on Smith (probes into abdomen); Smith was nonviolent, moaning in pain, and repeatedly said he could not get up; Choate did not intervene during the second tasing.
- Smith sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (Zulpo, Choate) and failure to train/supervise and municipal liability (Emerson, County, Sheriff). District court denied qualified immunity to Zulpo, Choate, and Emerson; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zulpo's tasing violated Smith's constitutional rights (excessive force) | Zulpo used objectively unreasonable force on a nonviolent, incapacitated pretrial detainee and twice tased him to induce compliance | Zulpo contends Smith kicked him first, justifying taser use; at least first tasing was reasonable for officer safety | Court: Viewing facts favorably to Smith, the second tasing could be excessive; denial of qualified immunity to Zulpo affirmed |
| Whether Choate is liable for failing to intervene | Choate failed to stop the second tasing despite being present and warned, violating Smith's rights | Choate argues independent analysis and challenges sufficiency of evidence for intervention liability | Court: Choate had a clearly established duty to intervene; denial of qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether Emerson (jail administrator) is liable for failure to train/supervise | Emerson knowingly authorized taser use, posted warnings, permitted untrained taser use, and thus was deliberately indifferent | Emerson argues no underlying constitutional violation by officers means no supervisory liability / qualified immunity | Court: Evidence allows a reasonable jury to find Emerson knew of risks and failed to act; denial of qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether appellate court should review municipal and official-capacity claims | Smith asserts municipal and supervisory liability separate from qualified immunity appeals | Defendants seek dismissal of those claims contingent on qualified immunity rulings | Court: Declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over county and official-capacity summary judgment denials; those parts of appeal dismissed for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickey v. Reeder, 12 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 1993) (use of stun gun to compel compliance of nonviolent inmate is unconstitutional)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (Eighth Amendment excessive-force inquiry: malicious and sadistic vs. good-faith discipline)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (pretrial detainee protections under Due Process comparable to Eighth Amendment)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified-immunity interlocutory appeals under collateral-order doctrine)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established law should not be defined at high level of generality)