LaCross v. City of Duluth, et al, No. 12-2395 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment to a law enforcement officer on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging an excessive use of force claim. The district court determined that the officer had used a reasonable amount of force and that, even if the Taser application constituted excessive force, it was not clearly established at the time that the use of force resulting in only de minimis injuries might violate the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiff had not set forth sufficient evidence to show that the officer's application of a Taser caused more than de minimis injury. Accordingly, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate plaintiff's then clearly established constitutional rights. Further, the court found no error in the application of the pleading standard set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil case - civil rights. In September, 2006, when defendant tasered plaintiff, a reasonable police officer could have believed that as long as he did not cause more than de minimis injury to an arrestee, his actions would not violate the Fourth Amendment; plaintiff had not set forth sufficient evidence to show defendant's application of a Taser caused more than de minimis injury, and the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate plaintiff's then clearly established constitutional rights.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.