Jackson v. Stair, No. 18-2617 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit vacated a prior opinion, and granted a petition for rehearing to clarify its decision in light of this court's recent holdings in Kelsay v. Ernst, 933 F.3d 975 (8thCir. 2019) (en banc), and Rudley v. Little Rock Police Dep't, 935 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 2019). The court issued a new, clarifying analysis on the excessive force and qualified immunity claims involving Defendant Officer Stair.
Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for damages, alleging that the city, the police department, and the officer violated plaintiff's constitutuional rights when he was detained and tased as part of an arrest. The court held that plaintiff failed to present any evidence to suggest that the City created, adopted, or supported any policy or custom that would demonstrate municipal liability. Therefore, the City was entitled to summary judgment. As to the officer, the court held that summary judgment in favor of the officer on plaintiff's First Amendment claim was appropriate where it did not necessarily follow that plaintiff's arrest was grounded in an effort by the officer to restrain plaintiff's right to express himself. The court also held that the officer's first and third tasings of plaintiff was objectively reasonable. However, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the second tasing amounted to excessive force in light of the video footage depicting the quick succession of the tasings, and the issue of whether plaintiff was resisting the officers or posing a threat at the time. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Court Description: Erickson, Author, with Wollman and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff failed to present any evidence to suggest the defendant City of Jacksonville had created, adopted or supported any policy or custom which would demonstrate municipal liability in this excessive force suit; there was no evidence to support a First Amendment claim against the arresting officer, defendant Stair; a reasonable officer in defendant Stair's position could have viewed actions immediately before the first tasing as threatening, resisting arrest and endangering officer safety, and the first tasing was objectively reasonable; with respect to the second tasing, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the tasing amounted to excessive force in light of plaintiff's condition and actions, and the district court erred in granting Stair summary judgment with respect to this claim; the third tasing was objectively reasonable in light of plaintiff's continued refusal to obey the officers' commands and his action in moving towards one of the officers. Judge Wollman, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 12, 2019.
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.