Shannon v. Koehler

• Decision Date: 17 August 2010
• Docket Number: No. 09-3889.,09-3889.
• Citation: 616 F.3d 855
• Parties: Timothy Clair SHANNON, Appellee, v. Officer Michael KOEHLER; City of Sioux City; Joseph C. Frisbie, Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

616 F.3d 855

Timothy Clair SHANNON, Appellee,

v.Officer Michael KOEHLER; City of Sioux City; Joseph C. Frisbie, Appellants.

No. 09-3889.

United States Court of Appeals,Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 16, 2010.

Filed: Aug. 17, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Jeff W. Wright, argued, Sioux City, IA (Deena A. Townley, on the brief), for Appellant.

Jason Gann, argued, Sioux City, IA, for Appellee.

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff, Timothy Shannon, is a former Marine and retired police officer who owns a pub in Sioux City, Iowa, called “Tom Foolery's.” In the early morning hours of September 13, 2006, Shannon was arrested inside Tom Foolery's by Michael Koehler, a patrol officer with the Sioux City Police Department. Following his arrest, Shannon filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Koehler, the City of Sioux City, the Sioux City Police Department, and Sioux City's former Chief of Police, Joseph Frisbie. Shannon's complaint alleges that Officer Koehler violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force in arresting him, and that the City, the Department, and Chief Frisbie are liable under § 1983 for establishing or tolerating certain policies or customs that led to the purported violation of his constitutional rights. The complaint also includes state-law tort claims against each of the defendants.

The district court ¹ dismissed the claims against the Department, holding that the Department is merely a subdivision of the City and thus not subject to suit. Thereafter, a magistrate judge granted the City and Chief Frisbie's motion to “bifurcate” the claims against Officer Koehler from the claims against them. The district court later denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all of Shannon's claims and reversed the magistrate judge's order bifurcating the relevant claims.

The defendants appeal the district court's denial of summary judgment on Shannon's federal claims as well as the district court's decision on the bifurcation issue. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Officer Koehler and dismiss the rest of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND

On the evening of September 12, 2006, Shannon was in Tom Foolery's drinking.

Starting around closing, at about 1:00 a.m. on September 13, surveillance cameras recorded Shannon stumbling drunkenly through the pub's seating area and interacting with departing patrons.

At about 1:15 a.m., Christina Navrkal and Jill Murad arrived at Tom Foolery's, apparently intending to drive Shannon home. The surveillance videos show Shannon, Navrkal, and Murad begin arguing almost immediately. The three walk behind the bar, yelling back and forth, and Shannon punches Navrkal in the face. Murad then shoves Shannon with both hands, sending him reeling backward and onto the floor. Shannon stays down until the bartender comes over to help him to his feet. Shannon touches his scalp and discovers that he is bleeding. The argument continues. Eventually, Murad becomes concerned about the cut on Shannon's head and calls 911.

What happened next is the subject of some dispute. The district court described the relevant events as follows:

Police officer Michael Koehler, a defendant in this case, responds to a call for a disturbance between two females, at a bar, involving an injured person. Once Koehler arrives on the scene, he is greeted at the front door by a woman, Jill Murad, who allegedly states that one of the females inside had been “touched or grabbed by the male who was in the bar.” Koehler and Murad walk to the middle of the establishment. The plaintiff, Timothy Shannon, is behind the bar. Shannon walks out from behind the bar, toward Koehler, and strongly states to Koehler, using profanity, that he owns the bar, does not need Koehler, and orders him to get out of the bar. Shannon eventually comes within arm[']s length of Koehler. Koehler alleges that Shannon pokes him, once, in the chest. Shannon denies this. Koehler uses both his hands to holster his flashlight on a ring in the back of his belt. As he is doing this, Shannon allegedly pokes Koehler a second time, which Shannon denies, and Koehler performs a takedown, which causes Shannon to hit a bar stool and land on the hardwood floor. Once Shannon is on the ground, Koehler places a handcuff on one of Shannon's arms and, after using additional force, secures a second arm in the other handcuff. Koehler claims that the additional force was necessary because Shannon had tucked his arm under his body. Shannon denies being uncooperative and alleges that he was injured during his arrest.

673 F.Supp.2d 758, 761-62 (N.D.Iowa 2009).

In August 2008, Shannon filed suit in federal court. Count 1 of Shannon's complaint contains two categories of claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first claim in Count 1 alleges that Officer Koehler violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force in arresting him. The other claims in Count 1 allege that the City, the Department, and Chief Frisbie established or tolerated certain policies or customs that led to Officer Koehler's use of excessive force. Count 2 of Shannon's complaint contains assault and battery claims arising under state law against each of the defendants.

As we mentioned above, Shannon's claims against the Department were promptly dismissed. The City and Chief Frisbie then moved to “bifurcate” the claims against Officer Koehler from the claims against them. The magistrate judge granted the request, ordering separate trials under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Next, the remaining defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment, asserting two principal grounds. First, Officer Koehler argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity, either because his use of force was objectively reasonable (and therefore not excessive under the Fourth Amendment) or, alternatively, because the unlawfulness of his conduct was not clearly established. Second, the City and Chief Frisbie argued that they were entitled to summary judgment, either because Shannon could not meet his burden of proving that Officer Koehler used excessive force or, alternatively, because Shannon could not meet his burden of proving that Frisbie or some other policymaker “condoned” a policy or custom that led to the alleged violation of his constitutional rights.

The district court denied summary judgment on all of Shannon's claims in a lengthy opinion and order. For now, two parts of the district court's analysis are worth introducing in detail, both of which relate to Officer Koehler's qualified immunity defense.

First, in the section of its opinion addressing the circumstances of Shannon's arrest, the district court found that several “genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether Koehler's use of force was objectively reasonable.” 673 F.Supp.2d at 783-84. With respect to the initial confrontation, which culminated in Officer Koehler using a so-called “leg sweep” to take Shannon to the ground, the court identified genuine issues of fact “concerning whether Shannon made contact with Koehler prior to the takedown, whether the takedown was appropriate and administered in accordance with police procedures, and the extent of Shannon's injuries resulting from the takedown.” Id. at 784. With respect to the ensuing struggle on the ground, the court identified genuine issues of fact “concerning when any alleged resistance by Shannon ceased and what force was used after resistance ceased, whether Shannon was fully subdued at any point before the force ended, and whether police procedures would have instructed Koehler to wait for backup, which was arriving, to ... secure Shannon's other arm [after handcuffs were placed on one of Shannon's wrists].” Id.

Second, in the section of its opinion addressing the alleged violation of clearly established law, the district court held that “view[ing] the record in the light most favorable to Shannon, ... Koehler was on notice that his actions ... were unlawful.” Id. at 786 (internal citation omitted). The district court's explanation for that holding focused on these lines from our decision in Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (8th Cir.2009):

The right to be free from excessive force in the context of an arrest is clearly established under the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Moreover, it is clearly established that force is least justified against nonviolent misdemeanants who do not flee or actively resist arrest and pose little or no threat to the security of the officers or the public.

673 F.Supp.2d at 785 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Brown, 574 F.3d at 499). The district court went on to find that “Shannon has properly supported, for [the purpose of opposing] ... summary judgment, his allegations that he was simply a nonviolent misdemeanant, at most”; that he “did not flee or actively resist arrest”; and that he “posed little or no threat to Koehler's security or that of Navrkal and Murad.” Id. Based on these considerations, the district court rejected Officer Koehler's contention that “[his] actions were within the ‘hazy border between excessive and acceptable force.’ ” Id. (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 206, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), overruled in part on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)).

As to the rest of the claims, it suffices to note the result. Specifically, the district court denied summary judgment on Shannon's § 1983 claims against the City and Chief Frisbie-what the parties call the “ Monell claims,” see Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (“[L]ocal governments, like every other § 1983 ‘person,’ by the very terms of the statute, may be sued for constitutional deprivations...