712 F. App'x 97
2d Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff William McKinney sued the City of Middletown and three police officers (Sebold, Ward, D’Aresta) after force was used against him during detention in a confined cell.
- McKinney asserted § 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims against the officers and Connecticut assault-and-battery claims.
- He also sued the City for common-law negligence and under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n(a)(1)(A) (vicarious municipal liability).
- The District Court granted summary judgment to the City and the Officers, concluding no reasonable jury could find the officers’ use of force objectively unreasonable; state-law claims were dismissed for the same reasons.
- On appeal, McKinney argued the combination of baton strikes, a taser, and especially a police canine in a confined cell could be excessive force despite his resistance.
- McKinney did not object below to the City’s assertion of governmental immunity, which the appellate court treats as forfeited on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether force used by officers was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment | McKinney: baton strikes, taser use, and a police canine in a confined cell could be excessive given circumstances | Officers: force was justified by McKinney’s resistance; reasonable as a matter of law | Vacated summary judgment as to officers; material facts allow a reasonable jury to find excessive force |
| Whether Connecticut assault-and-battery claims survive | McKinney: state claims parallel federal excessive-force claim and should proceed | Defendants: state claims fail for same reasons as federal claim | Vacated dismissal of state claims against officers and remanded |
| Whether City is liable (municipal negligence / vicarious liability) | McKinney: City liable under § 52-557n and negligence | City: asserted governmental immunity | Affirmed dismissal as to City because McKinney forfeited objection to City’s immunity defense below |
| Whether to resolve immunity now (qualified/governmental) | McKinney: appellate court should allow claims to proceed to assess immunity | Defendants: immunity may apply | Court declined to decide immunity; left for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment claims)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (objective reasonableness standard in detainee-force cases)
- Brown v. City of New York, 798 F.3d 94 (summary judgment inappropriate if a reasonable jury could find force excessive)
- Rogoz v. City of Hartford, 796 F.3d 236 (same; standard for granting summary judgment on excessive-force claims)
- Sullivan v. Gagnier, 225 F.3d 161 (resistance by a suspect does not permit unlimited force)
- Breen v. Garrison, 169 F.3d 152 (excessive-force factual determinations for jury)
- Posr v. Doherty, 944 F.2d 91 (relation between federal excessive-force and state assault/battery claims)
- Dalberth v. Xerox Corp., 766 F.3d 172 (forfeiture of arguments not raised below)