Rowell v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Muskogee Cnty.

• Decision Date: 27 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-7062,19-7062
• Citation: 978 F.3d 1165
• Parties: Zachary ROWELL, as Special Administrator in the matter of the Estate of Marvin A. Rowell, and individually, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA; Dakota West, in his individual capacity; Jacob Slay, in his individual capacity; Lacy Rosson, in her individual capacity; Rob Frazier, Sheriff, in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

978 F.3d 1165

Zachary ROWELL, as Special Administrator in the matter of the Estate of Marvin A. Rowell, and individually, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA; Dakota West, in his individual capacity; Jacob Slay, in his individual capacity; Lacy Rosson, in her individual capacity; Rob Frazier, Sheriff, in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees,

No. 19-7062

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

FILED October 27, 2020

Stanley D. Monroe, Stanley D. Monroe, PC (James A. McAuliff, with him on the briefs), Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the Plaintiff - Appellant.

Andy A. Artus (Jamison C. Whitson, and Taylor M. Riley, with him on the brief), Collins Zorn & Wagner, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Board of County Commissioners of Muskogee County, Oklahoma, Jacob Slay, Lacy Rosson, and Sheriff Rob Frazier, Defendants - Appellees.

Carson C. Smith (Robert S. Lafferrande, and Charles A. Schreck, with him on the brief), Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, L.L.P., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Dakota West, Defendant - Appellee.

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and MCHUGH, Circuit Judges.

MATHESON, Circuit Judge.

Marvin A. Rowell was arrested for public intoxication and brought to the Muskogee County Jail (the "Jail") in Muskogee, Oklahoma. In response to Mr. Rowell's uncooperative conduct during processing, Jail officials decided to move him from the intake room to another room to place him in a restraint chair. In escorting Mr. Rowell down a hallway, Officer Dakota West applied forward pressure to Mr. Rowell's right arm. After taking a few steps, Mr. Rowell fell and hit his head. He died shortly after from multiple blunt impact injuries to his head, which caused an acute subdural hematoma.

The Estate of Mr. Rowell (the "Estate"), through administrator Zachary Rowell, sued Officer West, alleging a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Estate also brought claims for failure to intervene against Officer Jacob Slay, supervisory liability against Shift Supervisor Lacy Rosson, and municipal liability against Muskogee County Sheriff Rob Frazier in his official capacity and the Board of County Commissioners of Muskogee, Oklahoma (the "County"). The district court granted summary judgment for the Defendants because it found that Officer West had not committed a constitutional violation. The Estate timely appealed. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

We describe (1) the arrest and initial processing of Mr. Rowell at the Jail, (2) Mr. Rowell's time in the intake room, (3) Mr. Rowell's fall in the hallway, and (4) the events immediately after Mr. Rowell's fall. We draw primarily from Jail video footage.¹

1. The Arrest and Initial Processing

On an early Saturday morning in January 2016, Mr. Rowell was arrested for public intoxication. When he arrived at the Jail, an official brought him to a hallway. For roughly two minutes, Shift Supervisor Rosson questioned Mr. Rowell and then another officer physically searched him. The video shows that Mr. Rowell slurred his words and stumbled around. He appeared able to understand and answer Shift Supervisor Rosson's questions.

2. The Intake Room

After this initial questioning, Mr. Rowell was brought to a small intake room. Officer Slay and Shift Supervisor Rosson were working in an adjoining room at the intake window, doing paperwork to book and process Mr. Rowell and one other detainee who was in the intake room. Officer West was in a control area not visible in the video. He could see and hear the intake room through a video feed.

Mr. Rowell was in the intake room for almost eight minutes. He continued to display signs of intoxication by stumbling while walking and swaying from side to side while standing. He intermittently approached the window. At one point, while Mr. Rowell stood near the window, Officer Slay told Mr. Rowell to "sit down for me." Suppl. App., Vol. I at 80, 9:42-9:48. Mr. Rowell leaned near the window for about 20 seconds before returning to sit on a bench. About one-and-a-half minutes later, Mr. Rowell stood and started to wander around again. Shift Supervisor Rosson told him that he needed "to calm down." Id. at 12:16-12:20. About one minute later, Officer West appeared at the intake window and asked Mr. Rowell, "What are you getting hyped up about?" Id. at 13:33-13:36. Mr. Rowell said something inaudible. Officer West told him to "chill out" and to "sit down." Id. at 13:37-13:47.

Mr. Rowell was not violent or disruptive in the intake room. But he was less cooperative than the other detainee, whom the officers never admonished and who remained seated for most of the time.

3. Mr. Rowell's Fall

Officers West and Slay exited from behind the window and entered the intake room to confront Mr. Rowell. They spoke with him for about 45 seconds, then led him into the adjacent Jail hallway, intending to bring Mr. Rowell to a restraint chair located in another room.² Mr. Rowell walked out first; Officer West walked one step behind him; and Officer Slay trailed a few steps behind Officer West. Mr. Rowell took a few steps down the hall with his head turned back over his right shoulder while speaking to Officers West and Slay. Officer West grabbed his upper right arm and applied forward pressure as they continued to move forward.

While Officer West was applying forward pressure to Mr. Rowell's right arm and while Mr. Rowell's head was still turned over his right shoulder looking back toward Officer West, Mr. Rowell fell into the wall and onto the ground, hitting his head.

The conversation between Officer West and Mr. Rowell during the few seconds in the hallway before the fall is inaudible on the video. Officer Slay testified at his deposition that Mr. Rowell "[kept] turning trying to face [Officer West], and [Officer West] [was] telling him you need to walk straight." App., Vol. I at 125. He further testified that Mr. Rowell "was saying stuff," but "his speech was slurred and impaired." Id. at 126. Officer West testified at his deposition that he decided to grab Mr. Rowell and lead him down the hallway "[b]ecause when I asked him to walk straight, walk forward, he was still having his body turned towards me, still talking, still being belligerent." Id. at 167. Officer West testified that he "was using the force I felt necessary to kind of guide him forward so he would walk forward. And he kept on turning his body towards me. And that's where we kind of go into the wall and that's where he just falls down." Id. at 168.

4. The Post-Fall Events

After the fall, Mr. Rowell remained motionless on the ground. Officer West knelt over Mr. Rowell's body and attempted to resuscitate him. Officer Slay informed Shift Supervisor Rosson over the radio that they needed to call emergency medical services. Mr. Rowell was taken to Saint Francis Hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and pronounced dead shortly thereafter. The cause of death was multiple blunt impact injuries to the head, which caused an acute subdural hematoma.

B. Procedural Background

The Estate sued in Oklahoma state court, and the Defendants removed the case to federal court. The Estate brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against (1) Officer West for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) Officer Slay for failure to intervene, (3) Shift Supervisor Rosson for deliberate indifference in her individual supervisory capacity, (4) Sheriff Frazier in his official capacity, and (5) the County for municipal liability.³

The Defendants moved for summary judgment. Officer West invoked qualified immunity. He argued that he did not commit a constitutional violation because his conduct was objectively reasonable under Kingsley v. Hendrickson , 576 U.S. 389, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015), in which the Supreme Court stated the standard for excessive force claims brought by pretrial detainees. He also contended that he did not violate clearly established law because no Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit case was sufficiently similar to the events that occurred at the Jail. Officer Slay and Shift Supervisor Rosson argued they could not be liable without an underlying constitutional violation and alternatively that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The Sheriff and the County argued they could not be liable without an underlying constitutional violation and that the Estate's claims failed on the merits.

The district court granted summary judgment to all Defendants. It "decline[d] to adopt [Officer West's] perspective that [Mr. Rowell] demonstrated more than mild ‘noncompliance,’ ‘protest,’ and ‘resistance.’ " App., Vol. III at 746. The court noted that "[Mr. Rowell] suffered severe injury, did not seem to present a severe security problem, and was not actively resisting." Id. But the court found "no constitutional violation, simply because the force used appears to be de minimis ." Id. It observed that without a constitutional violation, "the court need not address [Officer West's] alternative ground of qualified immunity," but that based on Tenth Circuit case law, "summary judgment based on qualified immunity would be appropriate as well." Id. at 747-48. The district court granted summary judgment to the remaining Defendants, whose liability depended on an underlying constitutional violation.

The Estate timely appealed. We now affirm.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

"We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standard as the district court." Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. , 659 F.3d 987, 997 (10th Cir. 2011). "The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "In applying this standard, we view the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the...