Smith v. Conway County, Arkansas, et al., No. 13-3095 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging, inter alia, excessive use of force by officers and a failure to train or supervise by the county jail administrator. The court concluded that it has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and the collateral-order doctrine to review the district court's denial of qualified immunity; the court declined to review the district court's order denying summary judgment to the county and to the individual defendants in their official capacities; the court concluded that the first use of the taser was reasonable where plaintiff purposefully kicked the officer and was aggressive; as to the second taser strike, a jury could find that plaintiff was nonviolent and an objectively reasonable officer would not use a taser on him as corporal inducement; plaintiff's constitutional right to be free from being tased for non-compliance was clearly established at the time; therefore, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity where the officers violated plaintiff's constitutional right to be free from excessive force; and the county jail administrator was not entitled to qualified immunity on the failure to train or supervise claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging defendants violated plaintiff's civil rights when they tased him while he was being held as pretrial detainee at the Conway County jail, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the first tasing as it was done after plaintiff kicked an officer and the use of the taser was a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline and not malicious or sadistic; however the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff's second tasering as a jury could find plaintiff was nonviolent and that there were no security or disciplinary basis for the tasering; since one of the taserings was done in violation of plaintiff's constitutional right to be free from excessive force, the jail administrator was not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's failure to train and supervise claim.
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.