Hollingsworth v. City of St. Ann, No. 14-1583 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseHollingsworth was detained for booking at the police station in St. Ann, Missouri, after an arrest for stealing wine coolers from a convenience store at a gas station. When she refused a directive from police and corrections officers to change from her street clothes into an orange jumpsuit, a police officer stunned her with a Taser device to encourage compliance. Hollingsworth later sued the police officer, two corrections officers, and the City of St. Ann, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging excessive force in stunning her with the Taser, and that corrections officers violated her constitutional rights by failing to intervene. She asserted that the city was liable because its policy regarding the use of Tasers was unconstitutional. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims, concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, and that the city’s Taser policy did not cause any potential violation of Hollingsworth’s rights. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, stating that although the actions of one or more officers might have been unreasonable, their conduct did not violate clearly established law at the time of the incident.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Kelly, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. In an action alleging the defendant police and corrections officers used excessive force when they tased plaintiff after she refused to doff her clothing and put on a jail jumpsuit, it was reasonable for officers to use some force to cause plaintiff to comply with their orders; it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that use of a taser, resulting in only de minimis injury, was an unconstitutional use of force, and the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the claim; qualified immunity also shields the two defendant officers accused of an unreasonable failure to intervene; with respect to plaintiff's claim, the City's Taser policy was not unlawful on its face and plaintiff did not present evidence that the City was deliberately indifferent to her Fourth Amendment rights. Judge Kelly, concurring.
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.