Felton v. City of Chicago
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11777
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Felton, while unarmed, fled from an unmarked car with tinted windows on an expressway; Chicago officers pursued, allegedly fired guns at him, rammed his car, and used stun guns; Felton claims serious injuries and multiple surgeries.
- He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Chicago and the police superintendent (official capacity) for excessive force.
- Because Felton was incarcerated, the district court screened the pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found pleading defects as to named defendants but also concluded the suit was "frivolous."
- The district judge relied on three newspaper articles (independent research) rather than the complaint or a defendant’s answer, and dismissed the entire suit sua sponte as frivolous without permitting amendment.
- Felton appealed; the Seventh Circuit appointed counsel for Felton and an amicus to defend the judgment (City declined to participate); the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether dismissal as frivolous was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal as "frivolous" was appropriate at screening | Felton alleged officers rammed his car, shot stun guns, and caused serious injury—sufficient to state a non-frivolous claim | District court relied on newspaper accounts to conclude the claims were baseless or self-inflicted | Reversed: allegations were not clearly baseless; judge improperly relied on outside news reports for dismissal |
| Whether allegations were factually frivolous | Felton: allegations plausible and not "delusional" or "wholly incredible" | Court below: factual record (via press accounts) showed injuries may have resulted from flight | Abuse of discretion to dismiss as factually frivolous when complaint alone must control |
| Whether claims were legally frivolous (indisputably meritless) | Felton: excessive-force claim under Fourth Amendment viable (esp. stun gun use after capture) | Implied: no legal basis if injuries were self-inflicted or no seizure occurred | Rejected: some allegations (e.g., multiple stun-gun shocks after pursuit) plausibly state a Fourth Amendment claim and are not legally frivolous |
| Whether amendment or further proceedings were required | Felton: should be allowed to amend to name individual officers and add facts about chase dangerousness | District court: dismissed without permitting amendment | Remanded: leave to amend required; stun-gun claim survives screening and case returns for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolousness means lacking an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (complaint allegations are frivolous only if clearly baseless or fantastical)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (objective-reasonableness inquiry; video can conclusively resolve facts at summary judgment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force claims judged under objective-reasonableness standard)
- Abbott v. Sangamon County, 705 F.3d 706 (stun-gun use can violate Fourth Amendment depending on resistance level)
- Cyrus v. Town of Mukwonago, 624 F.3d 856 (stun-gun and excessive-force principles in § 1983 cases)
- Billman v. Indiana Department of Corrections, 56 F.3d 785 (the complaint is the entire record for frivolousness screening)
- Williams v. Wahner, 731 F.3d 731 (limitations on using sua sponte factual findings at screening)
- Tate v. SCR Medical Transport, 809 F.3d 343 (leave to amend ordinarily required for pro se plaintiffs who fail to state a claim)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (police may end dangerous high-speed chases even if risk of serious injury results)