Jonathon Ziesmer v. Derrick Hagen
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7713
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- On Aug 22, 2010, Minnesota State Trooper Derrick Hagen stopped Jonathon Ziesmer’s car after a passenger attempted to flick a cigarette; Trooper Hagen approached, smelled marijuana (disputed), and saw or later found a hammer in the vehicle (disputed).
- Hagen asked for IDs, ran checks (no adverse hits), ordered passengers out, frisked Travis Jones, then told Ziesmer to exit; Ziesmer disputed the reason for removal and attempted to call 911.
- Hagen unlocked Ziesmer’s door, unbuckled his seatbelt, and pulled him from the vehicle; accounts diverge about subsequent force—Ziesmer alleges being thrown, tackled, kneed, shoulder dislocation, and struck in the head; Hagen denies excessive force and says he handcuffed and searched Ziesmer.
- Officer found a small amount of marijuana and a pipe; Ziesmer was cited, released, and charges later dropped; Hagen’s dash camera was not recording during the altercation.
- Ziesmer sought medical care intermittently over three years for neck and back pain (MRI, CT, x‑rays, physical therapy); treating records and a defense expert differ on causation and permanence of injury.
- District court granted summary judgment for Hagen, ruling injuries de minimis and invoking qualified immunity; the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force / injury severity | Ziesmer: neck/back pain and limited mobility from force exceed de minimis harm | Hagen: injuries were de minimis; defense expert found no permanent orthopedic injury | There is a genuine factual dispute about the seriousness of injuries; summary judgment improper—jury must weigh credibility and medical evidence |
| Causation of injuries | Ziesmer: pain began immediately after altercation; lay inference of causation is reasonable | Hagen: preexisting conditions and expert opinion refute causation | Causation is a disputed fact for the jury; absence of plaintiff expert not dispositive when injuries are within common experience |
| Lawfulness of seizure (initial detention/ordering out) | Ziesmer: seizure was unlawful, so any force was unjustified | Hagen: lawful investigatory stop and authority to order occupants out; force used to prevent flight | Court declined to resolve on appeal; remanded to allow district court to determine whether Ziesmer preserved the claim and, if so, to decide lawfulness of the seizure |
| Qualified immunity | Ziesmer: force violated clearly established rights given disputed injuries | Hagen: even if force used, de minimis injuries pre-Chambers justified qualified immunity | Court held qualified immunity inappropriate at summary judgment because material disputes about injury and causation remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2011) (discusses de minimis‑injury rule in excessive‑force claims)
- Reed v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 561 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review on summary judgment)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity framework)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (limits on resisting plaintiff’s version of facts when video evidence blatantly contradicts)
- Copeland v. Locke, 613 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2010) (expert causation testimony for preexisting conditions is for jury to weigh)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective‑reasonableness Fourth Amendment standard for excessive force)
- Robinson v. Hager, 292 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 2002) (when expert causation is required vs. lay inference)
- Johnson v. Carroll, 658 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2011) (credibility determinations for jury at summary judgment stage)