892 F.3d 963
8th Cir.2018Background
- In August 2009 Deputy U.S. Marshals sought to arrest Vinol Wilson on a federal indictment; intelligence said Wilson would be playing basketball wearing an orange #23 jersey.
- Marshals entered a gym in plain clothes with weapons drawn and ordered a black male in an orange #23 jersey to get on the ground; the person was Stuart Wright, not Wilson.
- Wright initially stepped back, was grabbed, kicked at, and stunned once with a Taser; he was detained about 20 minutes, during which bystanders (including a police officer and Wright’s brother) told Marshals they had the wrong person and Wright’s ID was produced.
- Wright filed an FTCA suit asserting false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and assault and battery; after prior appeals resolving Bivens/qualified immunity issues, the district court granted summary judgment for the United States.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: it relied on prior appellate findings that Marshals had probable cause to arrest for resisting arrest, that the 20-minute detention was reasonable, and that the use of force (single Taser shock) was objectively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s Local Rule 56.1 additional facts required deeming them admitted | Wright: district court should treat his facts as admitted because Govt didn’t respond as Local Rule 56 requires | Govt: rule permits, but does not mandate, a reply; court not required to deem facts admitted | Held: No error — Govt not required to respond and Wright’s asserted facts did not create a genuine material dispute |
| False arrest / False imprisonment | Wright: arrest and 20-minute detention were unlawful | Govt: Marshals had probable cause to arrest for resisting arrest; detention reasonable | Held: Affirmed — prior appellate decision established probable cause and justified detention |
| Abuse of process | Wright: officers misused process; improper purpose not necessary | Govt: arrest and detention were lawful so no improper use of process | Held: Affirmed — because the process was lawful, element of improper use fails |
| Assault and battery (excessive force) | Wright: use of force (grab, kick, Taser) constituted assault and battery | Govt: force was reasonable under circumstances; prior holding granted qualified immunity for Taser use | Held: Affirmed — force was no more than reasonably necessary; qualified immunity/ reasonableness dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. United States, 813 F.3d 689 (8th Cir. 2015) (prior appellate findings on probable cause and qualified immunity)
- Hinsley v. Standing Rock Child Protective Servs., 516 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 2008) (summary judgment standard)
- Rustici v. Weidemeyer, 673 S.W.2d 762 (Mo. 1984) (elements and defense of false arrest/false imprisonment)
- Stafford v. Muster, 582 S.W.2d 670 (Mo. 1979) (elements of abuse of process)
- Schoettle v. Jefferson County, 788 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2015) (reasonableness/force analysis and qualified immunity considerations)
- Celestine v. United States, 841 F.2d 851 (8th Cir. 1988) (FTCA tort principles)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (constitutional tort framework referenced in prior proceedings)