Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 15-1198
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(3:13-cv-03569-TLW)
Submitted:
Decided:
January 7, 2016
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Michael Barfield appeals the district courts grant
of summary judgment in favor of the municipal defendants, Deputy
Aaron Threatt and the Kershaw County Sheriffs Office.
following
reasons,
we
affirm
the
district
courts
For the
grant
of
on
his
claims
for
excessive
force
and
battery,
in
We
I.
A.
There is no love lost between Kenneth Michael Barfield and
his
neighbors,
the
Kellys,
who
have
nine-year
history
of
Upon arrival,
J.A. 97.
area
to
investigate
further.
Finding
no
disturbance,
Threatt left.
Later that evening, Kelly again called 911 dispatch and
spoke with Threatt directly.
drove
his
patrol
car
toward
Barfields
home
and
He parked his
patrol car a few hundred yards away from the home, near the end
of Barfields driveway, and turned off the ignition.
Threatt
to
Threatt,
backyard 1
and
he
thought
heard
he
someone
recognized
yelling
the
voice
in
as
out of his car, and walked around the property, knocking on the
houses
While
doors
walking
and
the
windows
in
property,
an
attempt
Threatt
to
locate
requested
that
Barfield.
central
Threatt arrested
fell
Threatt
called
to
the
for
ground
and
paramedics,
complained
who
to
the
hospital
for
medical
At some point,
checked
of
chest
pain.
Barfields
vital
Barfield
refused.
makes
it
more
comfortable
for
the
restrained
person.
Threatt double locked the cuffs so they would not get tighter
around Barfields wrists and checked the cuffs for fit.
He then
transported
Center.
Barfield
to
the
Kershaw
County
Detention
sleep
late
that
night
and
was
J.A. 109.
thereafter,
wife
and
Barfields
by
[s]omeone
answered.
The
caller,
Barfields father, told her the police had called his home and
asked him to step outside, but when he went outside no one was
there.
Barfield eventually
shirt, and walked through the porch toward Threatts patrol car.
He stepped off the porch, and while he was walking toward the
vehicle, he was bulldogged from behind 2 by Threatt.
111.
Barfield
characterizes
the
encounter
as
Id. at
violent.
events and testified that Threatt came out from behind a tree
beside the Barfields porch and hit [Barfield] like a football
player.
J.A. 121.
B.
against
excessive
attention.
Threatt
force,
and
and
KCSO,
failure
including
to
provide
illegal
necessary
seizure,
medical
federal court.
In
the
district
court,
Barfield
entered
stipulation
dismissing all claims against KCSO except for the SCTCA battery
and false imprisonment claims, and all claims against Threatt
except
for
claims.
with
the
1983
illegal
seizure
and
excessive
force
Threatt
asserting
qualified
immunity
and
KCSO
asserting
sovereign immunity.
The
magistrate
judge
issued
Report
and
Recommendation
to
the
1983
illegal
seizure
and
SCTCA
With
false
cause
to
make
warrantless
arrest
of
Barfield,
the
evidence
to
even
be
if
magistrate
to
judge
dispute
Barfield
Barfield
that
yelling
had
not
found
Threatt
from
been
the
Barfield
heard
someone
Barfield
yelling,
the
did
More
not
he
property.
facts
and
Threatts
decision
to
arrest
conduct.
Barfield
for
disorderly
Regarding
the
1983
excessive
force
and
SCTCA
battery
Barfield
was
unreasonable
given
that
Threatt
and
the
magistrate
judge
for
reasonable
concluded
Barfield
suffered
to
conclude
Threatt
used
judge did not construe the facts and all permissible inferences
in his favor.
judges
analysis
legal
and
conclusions
accurate[],
accepted
the
Report
and
Recommendation
and
adopted
its
reasoning,
of
Appellees.
Additionally,
the
district
court
relevant
only
to
Barfields
guilt
or
innocencenot
to
II.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.
Stevenson
v. City of Seat Pleasant, 743 F.3d 411, 416 (4th Cir. 2014).
Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
In
the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment.
Id. at 248.
Qualified
immunity
balances
two
important
intereststhe
irresponsibly
and
the
need
to
shield
officials
from
Henry v.
determine
whether
an
officer
is
entitled
to
summary
Pearson, 555
U.S. at 236; Raub v. Campbell, 785 F.3d 876, 881 (4th Cir. 2015)
(providing
the
court
may
address
the
analysis
in
the
of
each
case
(alteration
in
original)
(quoting
533
U.S.
194,
201
(2001).
Barfields
1983
claims
III.
A.
We
may
resolve
Barfields
illegal
seizure
and
false
decide
whether
Barfields
constitutional injury.
1983
and
imprisonment
1983
SCTCA
together.
allegations
claims
for
First
we
establish
152 (2004); see also United States v. Johnson, 599 F.3d 339, 346
(4th Cir. 2010).
See
Cahaly
(rejecting
v.
a
false
796
F.3d
imprisonment
399,
claim
409
and
(4th
Cir.
holding
2015)
[t]he
10
that
offense.
the
arrestee
had
committed
or
was
committing
an
Manbeck, 744 F.2d 360, 376 (4th Cir. 1984)); see also Jones v.
City of Columbia, 389 S.E.2d 662, 663 (S.C. 1990).
The
district
court
properly
found
no
Fourth
Amendment
Barfield
in
yelling
his
yardis
relevant
only
to
Barfields
version
of
the
facts
as
true,
and
Taking
construing
all
that
no
one
was
yelling.
Barfield
has
never
heard
yelling,
no
yelling.
Threatt
had
Thus,
probable
even
assuming
cause
11
to
Barfield
make
was
not
warrantless
have
heard
believed,
belonged
yelling
based
to
on
in
Barfields
prior
Barfield.
Threatts
objectively
breaching
the
Appellees
were
peace,
interactions,
Together,
reasonable
making
therefore
backyard.
this
belief
the
Threatt
the
yelling
knowledge
that
voice
warranted
Barfield
warrantless
arrest
to
judgment
entitled
also
summary
was
lawful.
as
claim
whether
the
arises
force
in
the
used
to
context
effect
(1989).
Here,
too,
of
the
an
When an excessive
arrest,
seizure
was
we
analyze
reasonable
reasonableness
inquiry
is
objectively
circumstances
reasonable
confronting
in
light
[him].
Id.
at
of
the
397.
facts
The
and
Supreme
Court
in
Graham
instructed
courts
to
consider
the
following
severity
poses
of
an
the
crime
immediate
at
threat
issue,
to
(2) whether
the
safety
of
the
the
to
evade
arrest
by
flight.
Id.
at
396.
The
officer
on
vision of hindsight.
the
scene,
rather
than
to
be
the
20/20
with
decided
is
whether
the
Ultimately, the
totality
of
the
Inc.,
456
S.E.2d
429,
432
Jones v. Winn-Dixie
(S.C.
Ct.
App.
1995).
13
In turn,
and
battery
and
found
Barfield
presented
insufficient
Threatt
and
Barfield
present
wildly
We
disparate
regarding
Barfield.
the
necessity
of
force
used
in
arresting
We
cannot
say
that
Threatts
actions
were
objectively
The first
have
been
breaching
the
peace
by
yelling
on
his
private
that
would
give
an
officer
any
reason
to
believe
that
Smith, 781
F.3d at 102; see also Parker v. Gerrish, 547 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir.
2008)
(finding
plaintiff,
who
the
was
first
factor
arrested
for
weighs
driving
in
favor
while
of
the
intoxicated,
risk,
or
that
he
was
actively
resisting
or
evading
police car when Threatt tackled him, that action, alone, does
not
present
Rutherford,
an
272
immediate
f.3d
1272,
safety
concern.
128283
(9th
Cir.
See
Deorle
2001)
v.
(finding
while
holding
force deployed).
can
or
bottle,
insufficient
to
justify
attempted
to
arrest
Barfield
before
tackling
him.
the
arrest.
Finally,
despite
Barfields
lack
of
Because
material
facts
are
in
dispute
regarding
the
alleged
Amendment
show
rights,
that
the
Threatt
district
violated
court
Barfields
erred
in
Fourth
finding
no
determined
Fourth
that
Barfields
Amendment
allegations,
violation,
we
turn
if
to
true,
whether
[]he
deficient,
makes
decision
reasonably
circumstances . . .
that,
even
misapprehends
confronted,
we
if
the
law
focus
our
constitutionally
governing
inquiry
on
the
the
the
unlawful.
Saucier,
officer
had
fair
notice
that
[the]
conduct
was
533
U.S.
at
206).
The
clearly
established
inquiry
debate.
Smith,
781
F.3d
at
100
(alteration
in
Id. at
104.
At
the
established
time
in
of
this
Threatts
more
conduct,
particularized
sense
202
(quoting
(1987)).
Anderson
v.
Creighton,
it
was
clearly
that
he
was
483
U.S.
635,
640
with the facts of this case, the law at the time of Threatts
conduct makes clear that in November 2011, a police officers
unprovoked
tackling
of
nonthreatening,
nonresisting
officer,
unprovoked,
attacked
nonfleeing,
F.3d
at
10406
(finding
the
same
clearly
established
in
18
immunity
when
officers
tackled
nonfleeing
citizen);
Landis v. Baker, 297 F. Appx 453, 464 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding
it
clearly
down
force).
established
suspect
who
that
was
forcefully
unarmed
would
tackling
and
constitute
pinning
excessive
obviously was no need for the use of any significant force and
yet took an unreasonably aggressive tack.
104.
This
combined
objectively
with
the
unreasonable
weakness
of
the
application
Graham
factors,
force,
puts
the
The
district
court
thus
erred
in
granting
summary
IV.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the district court
is
affirmed
in
part
and
reversed
19
in
part,
and
the
case
is
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
the
court
and
20