Watts v. McSherry
1:12-cv-00137
N.D. Ind.Oct 2, 2013Background
- On April 26, 2010, Trooper Rod Shuh and Sgt. Ryan Lebo attempted to serve an old arrest warrant on Brian Watts; Watts had paid the underlying traffic fines after learning of the warrant but was nonetheless arrested on a subsequent visit two weeks later.
- Watts asked before handcuffing that his hands not be placed behind his back because of three prior shoulder surgeries; officers handcuffed him behind his back and, according to Watts, the cuffs were overly tight.
- Watts complained multiple times (before and after transport) that the handcuffs were too tight and caused right-arm numbness and pain; cuffs were removed 5–10 minutes after arrival at the station; injuries were treated with over-the-counter remedies and caused temporary work limitations and intermittent numbness thereafter.
- Watts sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment excessive force, asserted a state-law battery claim, and (less clearly) alleged false arrest claims; only the claims against Shuh and Lebo remained at summary judgment.
- The Officers moved for summary judgment arguing (1) force was not excessive and they are entitled to qualified immunity, (2) state-law battery is barred by Indiana Tort Claims Act immunity, and (3) Watts did not plead false arrest against them. The court resolved these issues at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (handcuffing) under the Fourth Amendment | Watts: officers knew of his shoulder surgeries and ignored requests; multiple complaints and minor nature of offense make tight rear handcuffing excessive | Officers: handcuffing was lawful; even if not, law not clearly established so qualified immunity applies | Denied summary judgment on excessive force — genuine fact issues for a jury; qualified immunity denied because Stainback and related precedent clearly established the right |
| Qualified immunity | Watts: law on overly tight handcuffs and duty to consider preexisting injuries was clearly established | Officers: contours of law unclear; no reasonable officer could be expected to know limits | Qualified immunity denied — existing Seventh Circuit law (Stainback, Rabin) placed this conduct within clearly established bounds |
| State-law battery (ITCA immunity) | Watts: ITCA does not bar claims in light of precedents (he relied on Wilson v. Isaacs) | Officers: Complaint concedes they acted within scope of employment, invoking Ind. Code §34‑13‑3‑5(b) and no exceptions pleaded | Summary judgment granted for the Officers on state-law battery — statutory employee-immunity applies and no pleaded exception entitles waiver of immunity |
| False arrest claim (pleading sufficiency) | Watts: incorporated Notice of Tort Claim and Complaint allegations suffice to put Officers on notice of false arrest claim | Officers: Complaint did not expressly allege false arrest against them; lacking fair notice | Court finds false arrest claim was pleaded (albeit inartfully); grants Officers leave to file a separate summary judgment motion on that claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. O'Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (standard for objective reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (use-of-force balancing test referenced in Graham)
- Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758 (Fourth Amendment prohibits excessive force during seizure)
- Stainback v. Dixon, 569 F.3d 767 (officer must consider arrestee's medical conditions before handcuffing)
- Rabin v. Flynn, 725 F.3d 628 (denial of summary judgment where arrestee informed officer of medical conditions before handcuffing)
- Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767 (cases recognizing excessive-force claims from tight handcuffs)
- Tibbs v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 661 (injuries and medical treatment considered in handcuffing excessive-force analysis)