Brewington v. Keener, No. 17-1382 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the county and to two sheriffs in an action brought by plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging the use of excessive force. In this case, plaintiff was stopped by law enforcement after he stole items from a local Walmart. Plaintiff was kicked by one of the officers without provocation and that officer resigned and was terminated the next day. That officer subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal charges.
The court held that plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an unconstitutional custom or policy; failed to show causation assuming there was such a custom or policy; and thus could not establish municipal liability. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment for the sheriffs in their official capacities. The court rejected plaintiff's failure to train claim and held that one of the sheriffs was entitled to qualified immunity. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating attorneys' fees and costs.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Wollman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. When a plaintiff alleges an unwritten or unofficial policy, there must be evidence of a practice, so permanent and well-settled so as to constitute a custom and, here, plaintiff failed to show the County officially or unofficially directed defendant deputy Keener to use excessive force against him; nor did plaintiff offer evidence that defendant Sheriff Jeffry ever instituted a custom or practice of using excessive force against suspects who fled; finally, even assuming the existence of an unconstitutional custom, plaintiff cannot show that the policy was the moving force behind Deputy Keener's conduct; as a result, the district court did not err in granting Sheriff Keener and Deputy Keener summary judgment on plaintiff' claims against them in their official capacities; plaintiff's failure-to-train claim against Sheriff Jeffrey was properly rejected as plaintiff failed to show an unconstitutional custom or policy and a single incident cannot serve as notice of a pattern of misconduct; with respect to plaintiff's claim for his dental injury, deputy Keener's kick did not proximally cause damage to all of plaintiff's teeth and the district court correctly concluded that the kick was not the but-for cause of all of the injuries; egg-shell plaintiff rule is inapplicable here; given plaintiff's limited success in the case, the district court did not err in making a significant reduction in the amount of attorneys' fees awarded to plaintiff.
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.