Rodney Brossart v. Kelly Janke
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10675
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Brossarts sued Deputy Braathen, his supervisor Sheriff Janke, and Nelson County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and related supervision/municipal liability; incident occurred June 22, 2011 and again June 24, 2011 at the Brossart farm in Nelson County, ND.
- Rodney was tasered multiple times during arrest for resisting and not complying with orders; Thomas was tasered once while handcuffed in the back of a squad car following a SWAT operation.
- Nelson County had a Taser Policy and Use of Control Continuum adopted in 2009; Braathen was trained on tasers in 2009 and 2011.
- District court dismissed state-law claims as time-barred and granted summary judgment on federal claims; district court’s rulings were affirmed on appeal.
- The opinion affirmatively finds no clearly established Fourth Amendment violation by Braathen and upholds qualified immunity for Braathen and the supervisory/municipal defendants.
- There is a concurrence dissenting in part, arguing that Thomas’s tasing, viewed favorably to him, could constitute excessive force and that summary judgment should be reversed on that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rodney excessive force qualified immunity | Brossarts claim violation occurred with multiple tasings. | Braathen's conduct reasonable under circumstances; no clearly established violation. | Qualified immunity; no clearly established violation. |
| Thomas excessive force qualified immunity | Thomas was tased in drive-stun while restrained; use of force excessive. | Arrest circumstances justified taser to gain compliance; not clearly established excessive force. | Qualified immunity; no clearly established violation. |
| Supervisory liability for training/supervision | Janke failed to train/supervise Braathen; causation shown by violations. | No underlying constitutional violation; no basis for supervisory liability. | No supervisory liability; failure to train not proven here. |
| Municipal liability policy and training | Nelson County policy permits nonviolent taser use and training gaps; causation established. | Policy facially constitutional; no deliberate indifference shown; no pattern of violations. | Policy/training claims rejected; no municipal liability. |
| State-law claims timeliness | Walker/Appletree tolling applies to mixed actions; equitable tolling possible. | Federal rule governs commencement; no tolling; statute-barred under North Dakota law. | State-law claims time-barred; affirm dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness of force; Graham framework)
- Davis v. White, 794 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2015) (Fourth Amendment use-of-force analysis for detainees)
- Shekleton v. Eichenberger, 677 F.3d 361 (8th Cir. 2012) (tasering nonfleeing, nonviolent suspect unreasonable)
- Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 2009) (limits of taser use on non-dangerous subjects)
- De Boise v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 760 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2014) (no reasonable officer would view eight tasings as constitutionally excessive)
- Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (deliberate indifference standard for municipal liability)
- Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (Graham framework not automatically clearly established law)
- Carpenter v. Gage, 686 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2012) (officers may use force to subdue during handcuffing)
- Hollingsworth v. City of St. Ann, 800 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2015) (facial constitutionality of taser policy upholding on their face)