Nauman v. Utah Highway Patrol
689 F. App'x 622
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2010 Officer Neil Ekberg arrested Thomas Nauman on suspicion of DUI after observing traffic violations and signs of impairment.
- Nauman told Ekberg he had a preexisting shoulder injury and asked not to be handcuffed behind his back; Ekberg secured him with front-of-waist handcuffs instead.
- At the jail, Ekberg allegedly pulled Nauman’s arm backward while attempting to apply handcuffs, causing Nauman to tell him to stop and to feel his shoulder "pop."
- Ekberg immediately released Nauman’s arm and then escorted him by the arm into another room without reapplying handcuffs.
- Nauman sued Ekberg under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the shoulder injury; the district court granted summary judgment to Ekberg based on qualified immunity.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding Nauman failed to show a violation of a clearly established right or to develop legal argument defeating qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ekberg violated Nauman's Fourth Amendment rights by pulling his arm and injuring his shoulder | Nauman contends Ekberg used excessive force causing a shoulder injury during detention | Ekberg contends his actions were reasonable and did not amount to a clearly established constitutional violation | Court: Nauman did not sufficiently show a constitutional violation or cite controlling authority establishing the right |
| Whether Ekberg is entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment | Nauman argues immunity is not available because conduct was unconstitutional and plainly unreasonable | Ekberg asserts qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or knowing law violators; plaintiff bears burden to show violation and that right was clearly established | Court: Grant of qualified immunity affirmed because Nauman failed to advance legal arguments showing a clearly established right |
| Whether plaintiff carried his summary-judgment burden to oppose qualified immunity | Nauman submitted factual allegations of injury | Nauman failed to cite legal authority or develop arguments on the clearly-established prong | Court: Plaintiff forfeited meaningful challenge; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether precedent supports denying qualified immunity on these facts | Nauman pointed to no controlling cases | Ekberg and court surveyed case law and found no controlling authority sustaining Nauman's claim | Court: No precedent made the constitutional right clearly established; immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)
- Fisher v. City of Las Cruces, 584 F.3d 888 (10th Cir. 2009) (setting the two-prong qualified-immunity framework)
- Rojas v. Anderson, 727 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 2013) (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff failed to develop qualified-immunity argument)
- Smith v. McCord, 707 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2013) (discussing plaintiff’s burden to defeat qualified immunity)