Oliver v. Brooks, 1:22-cv-00797-WCG

On May 24, 2022, Deputies Nicholas Brooks and Joshua Wilson responded to a Walmart welfare check after a woman reported her child’s father (Oliver) threatened to “put hands on her.”
Brooks located Oliver near a car; Oliver told Brooks his girlfriend (Audria) was inside the store and attempted to go into the store and then toward his car despite Brooks’ orders to stay.
Brooks attempted to prevent Oliver from entering the car, briefly grabbed his arm, and Oliver pulled away and ran into the store vestibule; Brooks and Wilson pursued and repeatedly ordered Oliver to get on the ground.
In the vestibule, Oliver refused orders, gestured and moved slowly toward open sliding doors; Wilson deployed a taser and Oliver was tased and fell; Brooks then rolled Oliver onto his stomach, handcuffed him, and placed a knee on his upper back.
Oliver, proceeding pro se, moved for summary judgment alleging excessive force (initially focused on being tased); defendants cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court denied Oliver’s motion, granted defendants’ motion, and dismissed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether use of the taser violated the Fourth Amendment	Oliver says he was complying or only passively resisting when tased	Wilson contends Oliver refused orders, moved toward exit, and posed escape/ safety risk warranting taser	Use of the taser was objectively reasonable; summary judgment for defendants
Whether the video precludes Oliver’s version of events	Oliver claims he was attempting to comply	Defendants say bodycam contradicts Oliver’s account and shows noncompliance	Court applied Scott v. Harris and found video undermines Oliver’s story; his version not creditable
Whether Brooks used excessive force while restraining/handcuffing	Oliver alleges rough handling and that Brooks kneeled on his back	Brooks says he used academy-taught stabilization after tasing to secure suspect for safety	Court barred new factual theory at summary judgment and, in any event, video shows no unreasonable force; summary judgment for Brooks
Whether plaintiff may add new factual bases at summary judgment	Oliver attempted to assert a new theory re: handcuffing at summary judgment	Defendants argue new factual allegations cannot be added at this stage	Court held plaintiff cannot amend the claim at summary judgment (per Whitaker) and rejected the new basis

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (establishes Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness test for excessive force)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (use-of-force-to-effect-arrest framework under Fourth Amendment)
Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941 (7th Cir. 2018) (totality-of-circumstances and split-second decision language in force analysis)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence can so thoroughly contradict a party’s story that the court need not adopt it on summary judgment)
Whitaker v. Milwaukee Cnty., 772 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2014) (plaintiffs cannot amend complaint by raising new factual theories at summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; nonmoving party must show evidence of a genuine issue)
Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2010) (nonmoving party must present specific evidentiary materials to show a genuine dispute)