United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
KAREN E. SCHREIER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Benjamin Carter, brought an action against defendants, Minnehaha County Detective Mike Walsh, Sioux Falls Police Department Chief Doug Barthel, Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead, and Sioux Falls Police Officer Edward Centeno, alleging § 1983 claims for excessive force and unlawful policy. Defendants move for summary judgment on all of Carter's claims. For the following reasons, defendants' motion is granted.
The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Carter, the nonmoving party, are as follows:
Carter was arrested on July 22, 2010, for a felony hit and run accident, reckless driving, and failing to maintain financial responsibility. At the time, he was also a suspect in an ongoing homicide and arson investigation. Carter was immediately taken to the Sioux Falls Law Enforcement Center so that he could be interrogated in relation to the homicide and arson investigation.
Detective Walsh performed the interrogation of Carter at the Law Enforcement Center with the occasional assistance of Officer Centeno. During the interrogation, Carter consistently raised his voice and used profanity toward Detective Walsh. At one point, Carter yelled, "good thing you have me cuffed!" and noted that he was bigger than Detective Walsh and Officer Centeno. Docket 51-7, Disk 2 at 17:08:50. After Detective Walsh stepped out of the room on one occasion,  Carter activated the emergency alarm in the room. Docket 51-7, Disk 1 at 14:31:12. When Detective Walsh reentered, he warned Carter not to do that again. Docket 51-7, Disk 1 at 14:32:53. Detective Walsh also told Carter several times throughout the interrogation to remain seated and, at one point, told Carter not to "stand up on" him because he gets nervous when people do so. Docket 51-7, Disk 2 at 15:07:20. Detective Walsh and Officer Centeno later stated that they believed Carter was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The interaction at the heart of Carter's suit took place midway through the interview. Docket 51-7, Disk 2 at 18:12:00. Carter was alone in the interview room, handcuffed, and agitated. He again activated the emergency alarm. Detective Walsh and Officer Centeno entered the room to find a seated Carter. Carter quickly began using profanity and yelling at the officers. He then stood up out of his chair. Detective Walsh approached Carter and placed his open palm on Carter's chest and told him to sit down. Carter did not sit. Next, Detective Walsh, using his open palm, pushed Carter toward the chair, and Carter resisted. Detective Walsh then placed his left hand on Carter's shoulder and his right hand on Carter's person. Officer Centeno simultaneously placed one hand on Carter's hip/leg area and applied a pressure point technique. Detective Walsh then pushed his knuckles into Carter's throat. The entire interaction lasted roughly ten seconds, and the officers removed their hands from Carter shortly after he was seated. Carter made no complaints of injuries at that time or later when he was booked into the Minnehaha County Jail. There were no lesions, bruises, or other wounds.
Summary judgment is appropriate 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). The moving party can meet this burden by presenting evidence that there is no dispute of material fact or that the nonmoving party has not presented evidence to support an element of his case on which he bears the ultimate burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). "The nonmoving party may not rest on mere allegations or denials, but must demonstrate on the record the existence of specific facts which create a genuine issue for trial.'" Mosley v. City of Northwoods, Mo., 415 F.3d 908, 910 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995)).
Summary judgment is precluded if there is a dispute in facts that could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). For purposes of a summary judgment motion, the court views the facts and the inferences drawn from such facts "in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986).
I. § 1983 Claim-Excessive Force
Carter claims defendants Walsh and Centeno violated his rights by using excessive force when they were interrogating him after he had been arrested. Defendants Walsh and Centeno argue Carter cannot win on the merits, and they also assert the defense of qualified immunity.
"In addressing an excessive force claim brought under § 1983, analysis begins by identifying the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized three different scenarios in which an excessive force claim may arise, differentiating by looking at when in the criminal process the force was used. Where the excessive force claim arises during the "arrest, " it invokes the protections of the Fourth Amendment. McKenney v. Harrison, 635 F.3d 354, 359 (8th Cir. 2011); see also Graham, 490 U.S. at 394. Where the excessive force claim arises during "pretrial detention, " protections of the Fourteenth Amendment are invoked. Walton v. Dawson, 752 F.3d 1109, 2014 WL 2053835, at *4 (8th Cir. 2014). And finally, excessive force claims arising after conviction invoke the Eighth Amendment. Wilson v. Spain, 209 F.3d 713, 715 (8th Cir. 2000); see also Graham, 490 U.S. at 398. Here, Carter's excessive force claim stems from force used while he was being interrogated at the Law Enforcement Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. At the time, Carter had been arrested but had not been booked or placed into jail. Under similar circumstances, the Eighth Circuit has applied Fourth Amendment standards when analyzing excessive force claims. See Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898, 905 (8th Cir. 2011) ("[W]e have applied Fourth Amendment excessive force standards to incidents occurring during the transportation, booking, and initial detention of recently arrested persons."); Wilson, 209 F.3d at 716 (apply Fourth Amendment standards when force was applied at local jail shortly after the booking process); Moore v. Novak, 146 F.3d 531, 715 (8th Cir. 1998) (applying Fourth Amendment standards when force was ...