James Steven Scott v. Kyle Palmer
686 F. App'x 631
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Red Bay PD Sgt. Kyle Palmer went to a church outside city limits to check on a missing child; he encountered deacon James Scott during the investigation.
- A verbal dispute arose when James questioned Palmer’s jurisdiction; Palmer responded aggressively, pushed James, and began to handcuff him on the right wrist.
- Accounts diverge: Palmer says James resisted, caused both to fall, and Palmer restrained James until a county officer arrived; Scotts and witnesses say Palmer kicked out James’s legs, forced him to the ground, kneeled on his back, pressed his face into the dirt, ignored complaints that James couldn’t breathe, and failed to loosen a tight handcuff.
- James sustained abrasions, contusions, and other injuries, was hospitalized, and later had visible bruising and physical therapy; criminal charges were brought then dismissed.
- The Scotts sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force) and Alabama assault/battery; the district court denied Palmer qualified immunity and statutory immunity at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for alleged excessive force | Palmer used excessive, non‑proportionate force (shoving, knee on back, face pressed to ground) and ignored pleas he couldn’t breathe | Force was de minimis on an arguably resisting arrestee and reasonable to effect the arrest | Denied — disputed facts about resistance and force preclude qualified immunity |
| Whether force was more than de minimis | James’s account shows force beyond simple handcuffing and more than minimal injury | Painful handcuffing alone can be non‑actionable if injuries are minimal | Denied — viewing James’s version, force could be excessive and non‑de minimis |
| Statutory immunity under Alabama law | Excessive/unjustified force supports inference of willful, malicious, or bad faith conduct | No evidence of willful or malicious conduct to strip statutory immunity | Denied — jury issues exist whether force was willful/malicious/bad faith |
| Adequacy of summary judgment record | Scotts produced evidence creating genuine disputes about material facts | Palmer argues no factual basis for liability or to overcome immunity | Denied — summary judgment inappropriate given disputed material facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (establishes objective qualified immunity standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use of force analyzed under Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness factors)
- Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (summary judgment / qualified immunity review standard in Eleventh Circuit)
- Brown v. City of Huntsville, Ala., 608 F.3d 724 (officer not entitled to qualified immunity where force was excessive for minor offense)
- Croom v. Balkwill, 645 F.3d 1240 (examples where force was reasonable under different factual contexts)
- Nolin v. Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253 (another case illustrating force reasonable under specific dangerous/resistant circumstances)
- Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341 (noting painful handcuffing alone may be non‑excessive when injuries are minimal)
- Franklin v. City of Huntsville, 670 So. 2d 848 (Alabama recognizes officer liability for excessive force)