Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffappealsummary judgment
defendantappealsummary judgment

Related Cases

Chamberlain v. Mathis, 151 Ariz. 551, 729 P.2d 905
View Case »
Hernandez v. Barbo Machinery Co., 327 Or. 99, 957 P.2d 147, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,229
View Case »
Anderson v. Stream, 295 N.W.2d 595
View Case »
Hudson v. GEICO Insurance Agency, Inc., 150 A.3d 184 (Mem)
View Case »
Terbush v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 399136
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462

Facts

On January 23, 2009, Lucas Burgess was arrested for driving under the influence after a traffic stop. During the booking process at the Greene County Jail, he was subjected to a takedown by deputies, resulting in serious injuries. Burgess claimed he was compliant at the time, while the deputies contended he was resisting. The incident was recorded on a destroyed videotape, and an internal investigation found the deputies followed proper procedures.

On January 23, 2009, Lucas Burgess (“Burgess”) was pulled over by police for a routine traffic stop for speeding, but was found to be under the influence of alcohol and the prescription drug Paxil.

Issue

Did the deputies use excessive force against Burgess during his arrest and booking, and were they entitled to qualified immunity?

Defendants assert that Barrett and McKinney used excessive force in performing the takedown on Burgess during the search at the jail, while Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Rule

The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard applies to excessive force claims, requiring an assessment of the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the crime, the threat posed by the suspect, and whether the suspect was resisting arrest.

Under the Fourth Amendment, we apply an objective reasonableness test, looking to the reasonableness of the force in light of the totality of the circumstances confronting the defendants, and not to the underlying intent or motivation of the defendants.

Analysis

The court found that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Burgess posed a threat or was actively resisting arrest at the time of the takedown. The application of the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard was deemed appropriate, and the court noted that the takedown could be considered unreasonable if Burgess was compliant and handcuffed.

In sum, the dispute of material facts bars resolution of the excessive force claims against McKinney and Barrett on qualified immunity grounds.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the excessive force claim and remanded for further proceedings, affirming the dismissal of other claims.

Therefore, we reverse the district court's order granting Barrett and McKinney summary judgment.

Who won?

The plaintiffs, Lucas and Angela Burgess, prevailed in part as the appellate court found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the excessive force claim.

The Court of Appeals, Clay, Circuit Judge, held that: 1 Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard applied to arrestee's excessive force claim; 2 genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether force used against arrestee was reasonable.

You must be