Patterson v. City of Omaha, No. 13-3213 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePatterson's mother called police after an argument. Officers approached Patterson, who sat on the porch, and told him, repeatedly, to leave. Patterson became agitated when they suggested that he go to a homeless shelter. They stated that he was under arrest and would be physically removed. The officers attempted to lift him. Patterson resisted. Patterson and an officer fell against a barbeque grill "with considerable force." Officer Hasiak punched Patterson in the stomach. That failing, Officer Hiatt used her taser; its probes did not connect. Hasiak thrust his knee into Patterson's thigh. Hasiak attempted to kick Patterson's leg, missed, and contacted Patterson's torso. Patterson stopped resisting. The officers put Patterson in their police cruiser and took him to the hospital. Medical staff diagnosed fractured ribs but believed that they would heal without further treatment. Patterson pleaded guilty to failing to leave his mother's property and was released. He collapsed outside of the jail and was returned to the hospital. Doctors discovered a torn intestine. He underwent surgery and was released a week later. Patterson sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. A jury found excessive force, yet only awarded $1. The district court and Eighth Circuit affirmed. A jury may reasonably conclude that compensatory damages are inappropriate despite finding that excessive force was used if it finds that both justifiable and unjustifiable force might have been used and the injury may have resulted from justifiable force.
Court Description: Civil case - Civil rights. Where the jury could have concluded that both necessary and unnecessary force were used and that plaintiff's injuries could have resulted from the application of necessary force, there was no inconsistency between a finding that excessive force was used and an award of nominal damages; facial constitutional challenge to summary judgment as a mechanism for resolving cases is rejected.
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.