Fitil v. Ryley
8:22-cv-00364
D. Neb.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Tosun Fitil sued the City of Omaha, Police Chief Todd Schmaderer, and Officer Justyn Ryley under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights and a civil conspiracy.
- The case arises from a May 29, 2020 protest in Omaha, Nebraska, in the wake of George Floyd’s death, where Fitil was struck by a flashbang grenade deployed by Officer Ryley during crowd control efforts.
- Fitil alleges he was peacefully protesting when Ryley intentionally threw a flashbang that exploded near his head, resulting in injury; defendants claim it was accidental or aimed at the ground.
- Both sides dispute whether Fitil or other protestors were throwing items at police and whether Ryley’s actions were reasonable and/or retaliatory.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, asserting lack of evidence, qualified immunity, no personal or municipal liability, and no conspiracy.
- The court denies summary judgment to Ryley on the First and Fourth Amendment claims but grants summary judgment to Schmaderer and the City on all claims and to all defendants on the conspiracy claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment—Seizure/Excessive Force | Ryley intentionally used excessive force via flashbang | Ryley aimed to disperse crowd, not seize; use reasonable under circumstances | Disputed facts exist; summary judgment denied as to Ryley |
| Fourth Amendment—Qualified Immunity | Law was clearly established—use of force can be unlawful | No clearly established right; flashbang not a seizure; entitled to immunity | Qualified immunity denied; facts in dispute |
| First Amendment—Retaliation | Ryley's actions aimed to chill protected protest activity | Ryley acted to disperse crowd, not due to animus; no chilling effect | Disputed facts; summary judgment denied as to Ryley |
| Municipal/Official Capacity Liability | City policy/training caused violations | No evidence of unconstitutional policy or widespread failure in training | Summary judgment granted for Schmaderer & City |
| Civil Conspiracy | Statements show officers colluded to violate rights | No evidence of agreement or plan among officers | Summary judgment granted for all defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y.C., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires injury caused by policy or custom)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness governs claims of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden shifting at summary judgment)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (official versus personal capacity liability under § 1983)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (definition of seizure under the Fourth Amendment)
- Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. 306 (2021) (intent to restrain and definition of seizure)