Ryan v. Armstrong, No. 16-1341 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseAfter Jerome Harrell died while in custody at the county jail, Harrell's estate filed suit against the county and various correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of Harrell's constitutional rights as well as other claims. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The court concluded that genuine issues of fact remain on the question of whether defendants Armstrong and Culloton were deliberately indifferent to Harrell's serious medical needs when they allowed him to scream, howl, and bang against his cell door for eight hours without attempting to talk to him or seek medical intervention. Therefore, the district court erred by granting summary judgment to Armstrong and Culloton on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity, and the court reversed as to this issue. The court concluded that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the trustee's excessive force claim where, among other things, Harrell was actively resisting the extraction procedure by ignoring directives to lie down on his bunk and resisting defendants' efforts to subdue him once they entered his cell, and defendants' testimony about the degree of Harrell's resistance was corroborated. Under the totality of these circumstances, none of the defendants' actions, either singly or in combination, amounted to an objectively unreasonable application of force. Therefore, the court affirmed as to the excessive force claim. Because the court was remanding some of the federal claims, the court also vacated the dismissal of the state law claims and remanded.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The plaintiff estate's deceased died while in custody at the Stearns County Jail, and the estate brought this action for violation of the deceased's civil rights; the district court erred in granting defendants summary judgment on plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim, as a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the deceased was suffering from an obvious medical need and that the failure to speak with him or seek medical treatment was a clearly inadequate response that supports an inference of deliberate indifference constituting a violation of constitutional rights; the district court erred in finding that defendants Armstrong and Colluton were entitled to to qualified immunity given the factors supporting a finding of deliberate indifference and the case law which shows that it was clearly established at the time of the incident that a pretrial detainee like the deceased has a right to be free from deliberately indifferent denials of emergency medical care; defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the estate's excessive force claim as the evidence showed that none of the defendants' actions, either singly or in combination, amounted to an objectively unreasonable application of force; defendants' summary judgment on failure to train is reversed in light of the court's ruling on the deliberate indifference claim; dismissal of the trustee's state law claims is also reversed. Judge Loken, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
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.