Rocky Thomas Traversie v. Matthew Starr, No. 18-1342 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Kelly, Grasz and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's discovery requests; officers were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claims
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1342 ___________________________ Rocky Thomas Traversie lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Matthew Starr; Matthew Hanisch; Dave Dunteman, police officers at Sioux Falls Police Department, in their individual and official capacities lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls ____________ Submitted: November 26, 2018 Filed: December 3, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Rocky Traversie appeals the district court’s1 rulings limiting discovery and the grant of summary judgment to three Sioux Falls Police Department officers on his excessive-force claims. We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Traversie’s discovery requests. See Sheets v. Butera, 389 F.3d 772, 780 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining that an appellate court’s review of discovery rulings is “very deferential” and that such rulings will not be reversed “absent a gross abuse of discretion resulting in fundamental unfairness” (citation omitted)). We also conclude that the police officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the summary-judgment record before the district court. See Rohrbough v. Hall, 586 F.3d 582, 585 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining that a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity on an excessive-force claim “unless the evidence viewed favorably to [the plaintiff] supports a finding that [the officer’s] conduct violated a constitutional right, and that constitutional right was so ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation that a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct was unlawful” (citation omitted)). ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2-