In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by the police, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the facts taken in the light most favorable to plaintiffs could establish the excessive use of force and unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Read Nance v. Sammis, No. 09-1353
Appellate Information
Submitted: September 22, 2009
Filed: November 10, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Murphy
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action challenging the manner in which Missouri's written lethal injection protocol might be implemented in future executions, dismissal of the action is affirmed where the complaint made no factual allegations suggesting any current or prospective member of Missouri's execution team would intentionally or unintentionally deviate from or ignore the written protocol.
Read Clemons v. Crawford, No. 08-2807
Appellate Information
Submitted: February 11, 2009
Filed: November 10, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Riley
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging unlawful entry and excessive force by police, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the presence of a domestic violence suspect did not alone justify defendant's warrantless entry; and 2) on all the facts alleged, including the lack of exigent circumstances, the lack of an immediate safety threat, and the lack of active resistance to arrest, a jury could find that defendant's use of force was not objectively reasonable.
Read Smith v. Kansas City Police Dep't., No. 09-1484
Appellate Information
Submitted: September 24, 2009
Filed: November 9, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Benton
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by the police, denial of qualified immunity to defendants is affirmed where a jury could conclude that plaintiff's pushing the officer was de minimis or inconsequential, and so a reasonable officer, when faced with the circumstances, would have known that responding by punching plaintiff in the face, taking him to the ground face down, landing on top of him and thereby causing him serious injury was illegal.
Read Rohrbough v. Hall, No. 08-3617
Appellate Information
Submitted: September 24, 2009
Filed: November 9, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Arnold
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that defendant prison officials failed to protect plaintiff from an assault, district court's denial of qualified immunity to defendants is reversed where: 1) defendants did not have reason to know of plaintiff's attacker's dangerousness; and 2) defendants' conduct did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference.
Read Norman v. Schuetzle, No. 08-1686
Appellate Information
Submitted: February 13, 2009
Filed: November 9, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Hansen
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action by a prisoner alleging inadequate medical treatment, defendants' appeal from a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is dismissed where the district court's order did not in fact resolve the qualified immunity issue and was purely administrative in nature, and therefore was not appealable.
Read Petersen v. Reisch, No. 09-1899
Appellate Information
Submitted: October 19, 2009
Filed: November 4, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Riley
In an inmate's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that defendants denied him access to his legal papers, resulting in his habeas petition being untimely, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where petitioner's claims were barred by collateral estoppel because, by denying petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion in the face of his denial of access claim, the habeas court necessarily decided that petitioner was not illegally denied access to his legal materials.
Read Irving v. Dormire, No. 09-1157
Appellate Information
Submitted: September 21, 2009
Filed: October 19, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Wollman
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by officers during an arrest, denial of summary judgment to defendants on qualified immunity grounds is affirmed in part where: 1) the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review officers' contention that there was insufficient evidence of causation to hold them liable for the decedent's death; and 2) the evidence supported a finding that certain officers violated decedent's clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment by failing to intervene in the assault. However, the order is reversed where defendant correctional officers in the jail where decedent was housed were not deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.
Read Krout v. Goemmer, No. 08-2781
Appellate Information
Submitted: April 15, 2009
Filed: October 6, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Colloton
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by an officer in performing an arrest, judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendant-officer's use of force was reasonable under the circumstances; 2) the district court adequately gave plaintiff's counsel an opportunity to make a prima facie showing that one of defendant's peremptory challenges was made on the basis of race; and 3) because defendant was permitted to provide a detailed description of a preliminary breath test device, any improper showing of the device was merely duplicative of other evidence presented at trial.
Read Cook v. City of Bella Villa, No. 08-2712
Appellate Information
Submitted: April 16, 2009
Filed: October 2, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Riley
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that defendant prison personnel interfered with plaintiff's childbirth, denial of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed in part where a reasonable fact-finder could determine that there was substantial evidence of one officer's general awareness of the risk of harm from shackling a woman in labor. However, the district court's order is reversed in part where there was no evidence of deliberate indifference to plaintiff's health on the part of the prison director.
Read Nelson v. Correctional Med. Servs., No. 07-2481
Appellate Information
Submitted: September 24, 2008
Filed: October 2, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Murphy
