Krueger v. Wagoner County Board of County Commissioners, 6:21-cv-00044

Background

The case arises from the death of Jeffrey Krueger after he was stopped by sheriff's deputies and officers in Wagoner County, Oklahoma, with events including a struggle, use of force (taser, strikes), and eventual death allegedly by positional asphyxiation.
Plaintiffs, administrators of Krueger’s estate, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for illegal arrest, excessive force, inadequate training/supervision, and state law claims for negligence/wrongful death and assault/battery against various County Defendants and Sheriff Elliott.
The defendants sought summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity against the federal claims and arguing for dismissal of state law claims based on statutes of limitations and governmental immunity.
Video evidence was central, including body cams and dash cam, depicting portions of the physical encounter between law enforcement and Krueger.
Procedurally, this decision addressed only the motions for summary judgment filed by the County Defendants and Sheriff Elliott; other defendants’ motions were set to be addressed separately.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unlawful Arrest (§ 1983)	Arrest lacked probable cause and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.	Officers had reasonable suspicion and probable cause for initial stop and subsequent arrest due to conduct.	Granted summary judgment for defendants; probable cause existed under the circumstances.
Excessive Force (§ 1983)	Defendants unreasonably and excessively used force (strikes, tasers, restraint), causing Krueger’s death.	Force was reasonable given Krueger’s resistance and danger posed; use aligned with policy and training.	Denied summary judgment; factual disputes exist regarding reasonableness and amount of force used.
Failure to Intervene (§ 1983)	Officers present failed to intervene in excessive force by others.	No excessive force used, and no realistic opportunity to intervene was present.	Denied summary judgment; sufficient evidence for jury on officer awareness and opportunity to intervene.
Official Capacity/Policy/Custom Claims	County policies/customs or ratification caused the constitutional violation.	No evidence of unconstitutional official policy, custom, or deliberate indifference; no causation shown.	Denied as to ratification for excessive force; granted as to other alleged policies/training inadequacies.
State Law Negligence/Wrongful Death	Sheriff Elliott negligently hired, trained, and supervised County Defendants.	Covered by discretionary function immunity; no negligence shown.	Granted summary judgment; discretionary immunity applies and no negligence demonstrated.
State Law Assault & Battery	Defendants are liable for intentional tort under state law.	Claims are time-barred (statute of limitations) or not properly noticed under tort claims act.	Granted for County Defendants (time-barred); denied for Sheriff Elliott (claim remains for jury).

Key Cases Cited

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness standard for use of force claims under the Fourth Amendment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard regarding genuine issue of material fact)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 ("obvious case" doctrine where unlawfulness is clear absent direct precedent)
Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal/official liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom as moving force)
Weigel v. Broad, 544 F.3d 1143 (prone restraint of handcuffed suspect can be constitutionally unreasonable due to positional asphyxiation)
Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F.3d 405 (clearly established that placing substantial pressure on a restrained, prone arrestee is excessive force)
Packard v. Budaj, 86 F.4th 859 (excessive force claims invoke Fourth Amendment and its objective reasonableness standard)
Fenn v. City of Truth or Consequences, 983 F.3d 1143 (municipal liability requires underlying constitutional violation by officers)