Roosevelt-Hennix v. Prickett
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9808
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Roosevelt-Hennix sues Prickett under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force during a stop and transport, asserting Fourth Amendment violations.
- Prickett argues qualified immunity; district court denied.summary judgment; this court has interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over denial of qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage.
- Most facts are undisputed; parties dispute whether Roosevelt-Hennix could move her feet and whether officers attempted to assist her before the taser.
- Prickett used drive-stun taser on Roosevelt-Hennix’s thigh after she claimed a back injury prevented movement; Barr later restrained her legs and medical evaluation followed; she underwent back surgery the next day.
- Roosevelt-Hennix alleged she informed officers of her medical condition and inability to comply; the officers allegedly did not assist with moving her feet before the taser.
- The court conducts a de novo evidentiary review to determine if a reasonable jury could find (1) she informed inability to comply and (2) no aid to move feet before taser.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Roosevelt-Hennix inform officers she could not move her feet? | Roosevelt-Hennix told officers her back injury prevented moving and she could not comply. | Record does not establish a medical impediment; any inability to move was not communicated. | Yes; evidence could support informed inability to comply. |
| Did officers fail to aid Roosevelt-Hennix in moving her feet before taser? | Officers did not attempt to assist or reposition before applying taser. | Officers attempted to manipulate and remove feet prior to taser (disputed). | Yes; record could support lack of aid before taser. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court 1989) (excessive force standard under Fourth Amendment)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (Supreme Court 1995) (limits on reviewing district court’s asserted facts in qualified-immunity appeal)
- Lewis v. Tripp, 604 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2010) (look beyond district order when facts are not identified; de novo review of record)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (Supreme Court 1996) (exception for reviewing unresolved factual inferences in qualified-immunity context)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (Supreme Court 2007) (blatantly contradicted factual record can be reviewed de novo)
- Mecham v. Frazier, 500 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2007) (objective reasonableness must be jury-triable only if facts are in dispute)
- Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. Black, 706 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2013) (interlocutory review of qualified-immunity denials)
- Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2008) (interlocutory jurisdiction over denials of qualified immunity)