Forest Kingcade v. Tim Trowbridge, No. 16-3172 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Arnold and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's deliberate-indifference medical care claims; however, the court erred in determining that plaintiff's excessive force and failure-to-intervene claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and those claims are remanded for further proceedings.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3172 ___________________________ Forest Conan Kingcade lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Tim Trowbridge, Captain; Brandon Moore, Officer; Mark Dennis, Cpl.; Alan Campbell, Officer; Phillip Caldwell, Sgt.; Steven Gregory lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: January 25, 2017 Filed: February 27, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Missouri inmate Forest Conan Kingcade appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against six police officers arising from his arrest in 2014. Viewing the record in a light most favorable to Mr. Kingcade, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, we reverse in part and affirm in part. See Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d 830, 836 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review). Specifically, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Mr. Kingcade’s claims of deliberate indifference. See Corwin v. City of Independence, Mo., 829 F.3d 695, 698 (8th Cir. 2016) (to establish deliberate indifference, pretrial detainee must show he suffered from objectively serious medical need, and that defendants knew of, yet disregarded, that need); Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016) (to be objectively serious, medical need must have been diagnosed by doctor as requiring treatment, or be so obvious that layperson would easily see necessity for doctor’s attention). We disagree with the district court, however, that the claims of excessive force (and the related failure-to-intervene claims) were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Colbert v. City of Monticello, Ark., 775 F.3d 1006, 1007 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (there is no inherent conflict between finding that police officers used excessive force in effectuating arrest, and conviction for resisting arrest and harassment of police officer; state court’s determination that individual resisted lawful arrest may coexist with finding that officers used excessive force to subdue him). Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on the deliberateindifference claims, but we reverse as to the claims of excessive force and failure to intervene, and as to those claims, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.1 ______________________________ 1 Mr. Kingcade has affirmatively waived his remaining claim. -2-
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.
