Terry Cravener v. Mike Shuster
885 F.3d 1135
8th Cir.2018Background
- Terry Cravener, a paranoid schizophrenic off his medication, exhibited erratic behavior at his parents’ home; his father called emergency services seeking a 48‑hour psychiatric evaluation.
- Deputies Shuster, Maggard, and Calvin arrived; Cravener refused repeated orders to lie on his stomach or go to the hospital, made gestures mimicking shooting himself, and repeatedly yelled "just shoot me."
- Deputy Shuster used a modified bent‑arm hold after ~20 requests, breaking Cravener’s left arm during a struggle; deputies used nunchucks and a belly chain and leg shackles to restrain him.
- Deputy Calvin administered five drive‑stun taser cycles to Cravener’s back after warnings; taser use did not incapacitate him and he continued resisting until EMS sedated him and transported him to the hospital.
- Cravener sued the deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and for failure to intervene; the district court denied qualified immunity for the deputies but granted summary judgment to Jasper County. The Eighth Circuit reversed, granting qualified immunity and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force — seizure unreasonable? | Cravener: tasings, arm break, and restraints were excessive given he was not committing a crime and was only being taken for a medical evaluation. | Deputies: force was reasonable to secure a resisting, potentially dangerous psychiatric subject after warnings and less‑intrusive measures. | No constitutional violation: force was objectively reasonable given resistance, warnings, and attempts to limit force. |
| Qualified immunity for taser use | Cravener: multiple drive‑stun tasings violated clearly established rights. | Deputies: existing law did not clearly prohibit multiple tasings under these circumstances. | Deputies entitled to qualified immunity; De Boise and related precedent left no clearly established rule forbidding multiple tasings here. |
| Failure to intervene | Cravener: deputies failed to intervene to stop excessive force. | Deputies: no one used excessive force, so no duty to intervene arose. | Failure‑to‑intervene claim fails because there was no excessive force. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two‑step qualified immunity inquiry framework)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide qualified immunity order of prongs)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use‑of‑force reasonableness standard from perspective of reasonable officer)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity default standard)
- De Boise v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 760 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2014) (multipl e tasings and whether clearly established right existed)
- Ehlers v. City of Rapid City, 846 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2017) (taser use on subject who appeared to resist held not clearly unconstitutional)
- Carpenter v. Gage, 686 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2012) (taser use after warnings on a subject who would not give hands was reasonable)
- Ryan v. Armstrong, 850 F.3d 419 (8th Cir. 2017) (taser use in medical extraction context for resisting subject found reasonable)