912 F.3d 1089
8th Cir.2019Background
- In July 2013 LPD Officers Fullerton and Duncan responded to questioning of a third party; Awnings inserted himself, refused repeated orders to move away, threatened officers, and physically resisted arrest.
- Awnings was taken down, fought with multiple officers, and sustained minor visible injuries; he was transported to a hospital where chest X‑ray showed no fracture and he was pronounced fit for confinement; a doctor ordered a follow‑up visit.
- Officer Banks, who relieved the transporting officer, failed to notify jail personnel of the doctor’s requested follow‑up appointment before Awnings was booked.
- Awnings pleaded no contest to related state charges; he then filed a § 1983 suit alleging false arrest, excessive force, and denial of medical care; the CLAO initially represented the officers but screened an attorney (Elliott) who had prior, mostly non‑involved employment at the public defender’s office.
- The district court denied Awnings’s motion to disqualify the entire CLAO, dismissed Officer Banks on Rule 12(b)(6), and granted summary judgment (qualified immunity) to Officers Fullerton and Duncan; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disqualification of City counsel | Elliott’s prior employment at the county public defender’s office created a conflict that should be imputed to the entire CLAO | Elliott had no involvement or confidential knowledge of Awnings’s state case and was screened; imputation not required | Court affirmed denial of disqualification (no abuse of discretion) |
| False arrest / probable cause | Awnings argues arrest was unlawful; Heck does not bar his claim | Officers contend Heck bars pled false arrest claims and alternatively they had probable cause for obstruction/resisting | Court affirmed that officers had probable cause to arrest for obstruction; Heck issue need not be resolved |
| Excessive force | Awnings says genuine disputes of fact preclude immunity; contends force was unreasonable and caused serious injury | Officers say Awnings resisted violently, used holds/kicks, injuries were de minimis, and force was objectively reasonable | Court held no genuine dispute supporting excessive force; officers entitled to qualified immunity |
| Denial of medical care (Banks) | Failure to notify jail of follow‑up appointment alleges deliberate indifference to serious medical needs | Banks argues post‑hospital omission did not amount to conscience‑shocking conduct and/or the claim is governed by Fourth Amendment standards for which relief is not clearly established | Court dismissed Banks under Rule 12(b)(6): examined under Fourteenth Amendment standards and found allegations insufficient to show deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (claims that would invalidate conviction are barred unless conviction reversed)
- Ziesmer v. Hagen, 785 F.3d 1233 (8th Cir. 2015) (visible, non‑sophisticated injuries may permit causation inference without expert)
- Ehlers v. City of Rapid City, 846 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2017) (refusal to comply can constitute obstruction under similar statute)
- Greiner v. City of Champlin, 27 F.3d 1346 (8th Cir. 1994) (some force is reasonable when arrestee resists)
- Carpenter v. Gage, 686 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2012) (arrestee medical‑care claims analyzed under Due Process in this circuit)
- Dean Foods Prods. Co. v. State, 605 F.2d 380 (8th Cir. 1979) (disqualification of individual attorney may require disqualification of supervised staff; does not compel imputed disqualification of entire office)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective‑reasonableness standard for excessive force claims)
- Bailey v. Feltmann, 810 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2016) (noting circuit has not resolved whether arrestee denial‑of‑care claims are governed by Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment)