Henry Davis v. Michael White
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13045
8th Cir.2015Background
- Davis, arrested for DUI in Ferguson, was taken to jail where an altercation with officers White, Beaird, and Tihen occurred; White’s nose was broken and Davis suffered a concussion and scalp laceration.
- No video exists; testimony conflicted, but record included evidence that officers beat or kicked Davis after he was handcuffed and subdued.
- Beaird filed four criminal complaints charging Davis with "Property Damage" for transferring blood onto officers’ uniforms; Davis later pleaded guilty to some municipal charges.
- Davis sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force by White, Beaird, Tihen; municipal liability for Ferguson; substantive due process against Beaird for false complaints) and asserted state law assault-and-battery claims; White counterclaimed for assault and battery.
- The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the excessive-force, assault-and-battery, and municipal claims; granted JMOL dismissing the substantive due process claim at trial; and later dismissed White’s counterclaim without prejudice.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed summary judgment on excessive force and state assault-and-battery claims, vacated dismissal of White’s counterclaim, affirmed dismissal of municipal and substantive due process claims, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive-force (Fourth Amendment/objective reasonableness) | Davis: officers used excessive force after arrest/while booking; injuries (concussion, laceration) not de minimis. | Officers: qualified immunity; any injuries were de minimis so reasonable officers could think conduct constitutional. | Reversed: summary judgment improper; injuries here not de minimis as a matter of law; remand to apply Graham/Kingsley objective-reasonableness analysis to each officer individually. |
| State assault & battery (official immunity) | Davis: officers acted with malice/bad faith, so official immunity does not bar tort claims. | Officers: conduct discretionary (use of force) so official immunity applies; injuries de minimis supports immunity. | Reversed: genuine dispute on malice/bad faith; de minimis injuries alone do not negate malice; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Municipal liability (Monell/ deliberate indifference) | Davis: Ferguson’s recordkeeping caused failure to track officers’ complaints/force, showing municipal culpability. | City: plaintiff lacks evidence of a widespread, persistent practice or causal link between recordkeeping and injury. | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to show municipal deliberate indifference or causal link; summary judgment for City proper. |
| Substantive due process (false complaints by Beaird) | Davis: filing four complaints despite uncertainty about blood was conscience-shocking conduct. | Beaird: he observed blood and acted on supervisor instruction; did not act with conscience-shocking intent. | Affirmed JMOL for Beaird: evidence insufficient to show conscience-shocking conduct; dismissal appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Sup. Ct.) (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (Sup. Ct.) (court, not jury, decides whether facts constitute constitutional violation)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, — U.S. — (U.S. 2015) (applied objective reasonableness to pretrial detainee excessive-force claims)
- Dawkins v. Graham, 50 F.3d 532 (8th Cir.) (actual injury requirement discussion in excessive-force context)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (Sup. Ct.) (de minimis injury bearing on excessive-force analysis)
- Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (Sup. Ct.) (Monell standard: culpability and direct causal link required for municipal liability)
- Parrish v. Luckie, 963 F.2d 201 (8th Cir.) (example of overwhelming evidence of a municipal culture covering up force complaints)
- Seiner v. Drenon, 304 F.3d 810 (8th Cir.) (official immunity for discretionary acts)
- Akins v. Epperly, 588 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir.) (conscience-shocking standard for substantive due process claims)