William Royster v. Tommy Nichols
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22355
8th Cir.2012Background
- Royster was asked to leave Kona Grill for unacceptable conduct and left without paying or signing a receipt for a $156.00 tab.
- Plaza Security and Officer Nichols were dispatched; Rosenkoetter identified Royster as the person who did not pay.
- Royster returned for his credit card; security and officers, including Nichols, confronted him on the sidewalk.
- Royster was arrested for theft of restaurant services after refusing to sign the receipts Royster had not examined.
- Royster contends handcuffing behind the back aggravated existing injuries; district court granted summary judgment to all defendants.
- Royster asserted various § 1983 and state-law claims; the district court concluded there was probable cause and no constitutional violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for arrest | Royster argues Nichols lacked probable cause to arrest for theft of restaurant services. | Nichols relied on information from Rosenkoetter and Royster’s failure to sign; probable cause existed. | Probable cause existed at the time of arrest. |
| Excessive force in handcuffing | Royster alleges handcuffing behind the back aggravated preexisting injuries and was excessive. | Handcuffing behind the back is standard practice; injury did not show obvious severity warranting front-cuffing. | No Fourth Amendment excessive-force violation; standard practice used. |
| State-law false imprisonment and related claims | Arrest lacked probable cause, supporting false imprisonment and related claims. | Because there was probable cause for the arrest, state-law claims fail. | False imprisonment and related state-law claims fail; arrest lawful. |
| Liability of Plaza Security and Board under § 1983 | Royster seeks vicarious liability for Nichols’ actions via Plaza Security and the Board. | Respondeat superior does not apply to § 1983; no underlying constitutional violation by Nichols. | Claims against Plaza Security and the Board fail absent underlying constitutional violation. |
| Kona Grill and Rosenkoetter liability | Kona Grill and Rosenkoetter should be liable for § 1983 and related claims due to lack of probable cause. | Court already found probable cause and no constitutional violation; claims fail. | Royster’s claims against Kona Grill and Rosenkoetter fail as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 619 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2010) (probable-cause analysis for warrantless arrest; totality of the circumstances)
- Borgman v. Kedley, 646 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 2011) (reliance on victim's information; exculpatory evidence may be overborne)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (Supreme Court 2010) (injury and force are imperfectly correlated; objective reasonableness standard)
- Dunn v. Denk, 79 F.3d 401 (5th Cir. 1996) (handcuffing as routine police procedure)
- McKenney v. Harrison, 635 F.3d 354 (8th Cir. 2011) (perspective of a reasonable officer; state-of-mind not controlling)
- Gibbs v. Blockbuster, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (false imprisonment requires lack of probable cause)
- Sitzes v. City of W. Memphis, 606 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 2010) (Monell liability requires underlying constitutional violation)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires official policy causing violation)
- City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (1986) (Monell-related municipal liability considerations)