Church v. Anderson, No. 17-2077 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on his claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant, finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was justified under the circumstances. The district court relied on plaintiff's criminal conviction for assaulting defendant and on defendant's testimony.
The court rejected plaintiff's argument that the court should create an evidentiary presumption at the summary judgment stage against an officer who fails to use audio or video recording equipment that he has been issued; the court recognized the unique evidentiary problem of a case involving the use of force in which only one side can tell the story, but declined to adopt such a radical solution; and, even construing the record in plaintiff's favor, defendant's use of force was objectively reasonable where plaintiff posed an immediate threat to defendant's safety and was actively resisting arrest. Consequently, plaintiff's state law claims also failed.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Loken and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The burden of establishing a civil rights violation by the police officer is on the plaintiff, and the court rejects plaintiff's proposal that where the victim has no memory of the incident, the court should create a presumption that the force was excessive if the police officer failed to activate available recording equipment; the officer's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable as plaintiff posed an immediate threat to the officer's safety and plaintiff was actively resisting arrest at the time he was shot; because the officer's actions were objectively reasonable, plaintiff cannot prevail on his related state-law claims for negligence and assault and battery.
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.