Johnson v. Carroll
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20385
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Incident on Dec 20, 2006 ~6:30 p.m. in Minneapolis involving Johnson, her nephew McClennon, and four police officers; Johnson bore-hugged McClennon to protect him during an arrest; officers broke up the interference, used force including pushing to the ground and mace; Johnson sustained an ACL knee injury requiring surgery; McClennon was tased and arrested; Johnson was maced and jailed; Johnson later requested police data and filed suit in Dec 2008 asserting §1983, DPA, and state-law claims.
- District court granted summary judgment for officers on §1983 claim and for City on DPA damages and state-law immunity, with battery claims deemed untimely.
- Johnson alleged excessive force in violation of Fourth Amendment, DPA data access violations, and state-law battery and negligence.
- The district court did not address whether Johnson could recover DPA costs/disbursements; Johnson’s §1983 claims against Carroll were dismissed; remaining claims were vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
- Johnson appealed challenging the district court’s ruling on §1983 excessive-force claim, DPA costs, and immunity defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Johnson subjected to excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment? | Johnson asserts officers used excessive force. | Officers claim force was reasonable under the circumstances. | Genuine issues of material fact; not clearly unreasonable as a matter of law. |
| Was the right to be free from excessive force clearly established? | The right was clearly established; defendants violated it. | Qualified immunity applies; no clearly established right violated. | Right clearly established; summary judgment improper on some claims. |
| Can Johnson recover costs/disbursements under the DPA subdivision 4? | Johnson seeks costs/disbursements for enforcement action. | Issue not moot; governed by statute. | Remand to determine if Johnson is entitled to costs/disbursements. |
| Are the common-law battery claims time-barred? | Service within statute period; timely. | Claims untimely; not commenced timely. | Battery claims dismissed as untimely. |
| Are the officers entitled to official immunity for the state-law claims? | Official immunity may be defeated by willful violation of rights. | Officers entitled to official immunity unless willful violation shown. | Record creates material dispute; immunity not clearly established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness standard for use of force; context-specific analysis)
- Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 2009) (two-step qualified-immunity framework; clearly established rights)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (modifies order of analysis in qualified immunity inquiry)
- McKenney v. Harrison, 635 F.3d 354 (8th Cir. 2011) ( Fourth Amendment excessive-force standards; reasonableness on-scene)