Henry v. Storey
658 F.3d 1235
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- In 2008, Ed Henry, African-American, filed a §1983 civil-rights suit arising from a nighttime police stop after an NCIC hit that his rental car was stolen.
- Henry alleged racial discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment and excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, including tight handcuffs, rude language, and weapons drawn.
- Officer Storey and Officer Fangio moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) after Henry's case-in-chief; the district court granted JMOL on the excessive-force claim against Storey and the racial-profiling claim against Fangio.
- At trial, Storey and Fangio presented no evidence; the jury later found no racial profiling by Storey and no excessive force by Fangio on the remaining claims.
- Henry proposed a jury instruction stating that SOP compliance could not be used to determine excessive force; the district court did not give this instruction.
- On appeal, Henry challenged the JMOL rulings and the jury-instruction denial; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JMOL was proper on Storey’s alleged excessive force | Henry contends Storey used excessive force by aiming a weapon at him. | Storey’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances; no evidence he aimed a weapon at Henry. | JMOL affirmed; insufficient evidence of excessive force. |
| Whether JMOL was proper on Fangio’s racial-profiling claim | Henry asserted Fangio participated in discriminatory plate checks. | Fangio had no personal involvement; Storey made the decision to run plates. | JMOL affirmed; no personal involvement proven. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by not giving Henry's SOP jury instruction | SOP compliance should not be considered to justify use of force. | The standard jury instructions adequately covered excessive-force elements; the proposed instruction was not necessary. | No abuse; court properly refused the instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundstrom v. Romero, 616 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness factors for use of force)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness under Fourth Amendment)
- Sturdivan v. Murr, 511 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2008) (reasonable-officer perspective in use-of-force review)
- Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (guns and excessive-force discussion)
- United States v. Neff, 300 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002) (Terry stop weapons context)
- Holland v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2001) (gun-point detentions in SWAT context)
- Foote v. Spiegel, 118 F.3d 1416 (10th Cir. 1997) (personal participation liability under §1983)
- Manzanares v. Higdon, 575 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2009) (JMOL de novo standard of review)