Edwards v. Giles

Citation51 F.3d 155
Decision Date31 March 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-1577NE,94-1577NE
PartiesErnest EDWARDS, Appellee, v. Brian GILES; Timothy Woolman; Mike Bassett, of the Lincoln Police Department, Lincoln, NE, Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Mark A. Christensen, Lincoln, NE (Andrew D. Strotman appeared on the brief), for appellant.

Denise E. Frost, Omaha, NE, argued, for appellee.

Before FAGG, Circuit Judge, ROSS, Senior Circuit Judge, and MAGILL, Circuit Judge.

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

In this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action, Ernest Edwards contends police officers Brian Giles, Timothy Woolman, and Mike Bassett violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force to arrest Edwards. Edwards contends the officers used excessive force when they placed him on the ground during the arrest, and Officer Woolman used excessive force when he pointed his gun at Edwards. The district court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. In reviewing the denial, we consider the record in the light most favorable to Edwards.

During the late afternoon of July 4, 1992, a police officer pursuing a speeding van saw the driver crash the van and run away. The officer discovered the van was stolen, and police began searching for the driver. An individual in the neighborhood told some of the searching officers that a man matching the driver's description was at a house near the crash site. Two officers drove by the house and observed Edwards, who matched the description of the driver. When Edwards saw the police car, he disappeared around the side of the house.

Officer Woolman later spotted Edwards and chased him on foot. Edwards hid behind some bushes, but when Woolman approached him, Edwards stood up and asked the officer what he wanted. Woolman briefly pointed his gun at Edwards, then reholstered it when Edwards started running. With Woolman in pursuit, Edwards ducked around the corner of a nearby house, where Officers Giles and Bassett blocked his path. Edwards stopped and put his hands on his head. Edwards was wearing only shoes and shorts, and was not carrying a weapon. One of the officers threw Edwards to the ground, and the officers handcuffed and shackled him. Edwards cut his abdomen when he struck the ground.

On appeal, the officers contend they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity, because Edwards failed to produce specific facts showing the officers used excessive force in apprehending Edwards. See Cole v. Bone, 993 F.2d 1328, 1332 (8th Cir.1993). We agree. Although it is clearly established that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from using excessive force during an arrest, Edwards cannot overcome the officers' summary judgment motion with generalized assertions that the officers used excessive force. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Rather, Edwards must point out facts that would allow a reasonable jury to find the actions of the officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment. Id. Because Edwards has failed to do so, summary judgment for the officers is appropriate. Reed v. Woodruff County, 7 F.3d 808, 810-11 (8th Cir.1993).

Edwards concedes the officers were entitled to place him on the ground physically in the course of completing the arrest. He simply claims the officers put him on the ground with an excessive amount of force considering that Edwards was unarmed and not belligerent. Edwards's claim founders, however, because he failed to present sufficient evidence to show the officers' actions were objectively unreasonable in the circumstances. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1872, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). Edwards's affidavit merely states one of the officers "threw [Edwards] to the ground," and in an answer to an interrogatory, Edwards states he "was thrown to the ground forcibly." These abstract assertions tell us nothing more than that one officer used...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Woods v. Valentino
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • May 14, 2007
    ...to minor injuries such as soreness, minor bruises or cuts. See e.g. Nolin v. Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir.2000); Edwards v. Giles, 51 F.3d 155 (8th Cir.1995). Those decisions are readily distinguishable from the present case and are therefore not persuasive. 28. The Court need not ......
  • Wilson v. Lamp
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • November 3, 2015
    ...stated, "[t]he language of the two Clauses differs, and the nature of the claims often differs."). The defendants cite: Edwards v. Giles , 51 F.3d 155 (8th Cir.1995) (suspect fleeing apprehension); Grider v. Bowling , 785 F.3d 1248 (8th Cir.2015) (officers use of force not excessive because......
  • Jones v. Buchanan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • April 15, 2003
    ...from the case at hand that Deputy Keller's reliance on them itself demonstrates the weakness of his argument. See Edwards v. Giles, 51 F.3d 155, 156 (8th Cir.1995)(holding no excessive force claim when plaintiff, driving stolen van, refused to stop for police, crashed his van, and then ran ......
  • Johnson v. Grob
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • May 14, 1996
    ...(remanding to district court). Nor is an officer's pointing a gun during a valid stop unreasonable per se.8 See Edwards v. Giles, 51 F.3d 155, 157 (8th Cir.1995) (finding no constitutional violation in officer's drawing gun and pointing it at plaintiff, where officer was not accused of atte......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT