Burnikel v. Fong, No. 16-3930 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims of excessive force and municipal liability, as well as state tort claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity where plaintiff established that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. In this case, the officers delivered repeated strikes, punches, and blows to plaintiff while plaintiff pleaded with them to stop hitting him because he was not resisting arrest or doing anything wrong. Therefore, a reasonable officer standing in defendants' shoes would have understood that the amount of force used to subdue plaintiff was excessive, as was their action in purposefully dropping plaintiff face-first onto the sidewalk after he had been subdued and handcuffed. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over the officers' appeal of the denial of summary judgment on the state law claims because the court's resolution of the qualified immunity appeal did not necessarily resolve plaintiff's state law claims against the officers.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Beam and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In action claiming defendants, Des Moines police officers, used excessive force in arresting plaintiff, the district court did not err in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity;under plaintiff's version of the disputed facts, he has established the defendants violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force; assuming that plaintiff's version of the incident which led to his beating and arrest is true, a reasonable officer standing in defendant's shoes would have under stood that the amount of force used to subdue plaintiff was excessive, as was the officers' action in purposefully dropping plaintiff face-first onto the sidewalk after he had been subdued and handcuffed; as the resolution of the qualified immunity appeal does not necessarily resolve plaintiff's state law claims against the officers, that portion of the appeal which involves state law claims is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
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.