Thomas v. City Of Concord

Background

Anthony Thomas sued the City of Concord and police officers, including Officer Savage and Corporal Blakely. The opinion addresses defendants’ motion for summary judgment and/or partial summary judgment. Thomas asserted federal claims involving excessive force, denial of medical care, and municipal liability, as well as state-law claims.

Thomas did not dispute that his arrest was lawful. The dispute concerned the amount of force used during the arrest. Officer Savage initially approached Thomas while Thomas held a tool, which Thomas dropped after Savage pointed a firearm at him. Savage then used a Taser, and Thomas ran. When Savage caught Thomas on a residential street, Thomas raised his visibly empty hands and got on his knees. The officers then took hold of Thomas and pushed him toward the ground.

The video did not clearly show all of the relevant events. The court said a jury could credit Thomas’s account that an officer applied pressure to his head, neck, and back for at least 21 seconds while Thomas was on the ground. Thomas also submitted evidence of a diagnosed cervical-disc herniation. Defendants contended that Thomas was pushing up from the ground and resisting being handcuffed, but the court found that the video did not clearly establish that account.

Excessive Force

The court applied the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard. That standard requires balancing the intrusion caused by the force against the circumstances confronting the officers, including the seriousness of the suspected crimes, the threat posed by the suspect, and whether the suspect was resisting or fleeing.

The court concluded that the video did not eliminate genuine disputes about what force the officers used or whether that force was reasonable. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Thomas, a reasonable jury could find that the officers used excessive force. The court therefore did not grant summary judgment to defendants on the factual reasonableness issue.

The court nevertheless held that Officer Savage was entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects a public official from a damages suit unless the facts show a constitutional violation and the violated right was clearly established with sufficient specificity at the time. The court found that Thomas had not identified precedent that clearly established that Savage’s specific conduct—using at least 21 seconds of pressure on Thomas’s head, neck, and back while Thomas remained on his knees with his hands up but refused an order to get on his face—violated the Fourth Amendment. The court stated that judgment must therefore be entered against Thomas on his excessive-force claim.

Denial of Medical Care

The court held that officers must provide objectively reasonable medical care after an arrest. It entered judgment against Thomas on this claim because his evidence did not establish when he suffered an injury requiring treatment, whether a reasonable officer would have known that he needed medical attention, or what care should have been provided. The court also noted that the officers called an ambulance to the scene.

Municipal Liability

Thomas argued that the City of Concord failed to train its employees and acted with deliberate indifference. The court found that he submitted no evidence of a custom, pattern, practice, or other basis for holding the city responsible for its employees’ alleged constitutional violations. It entered judgment against Thomas on the municipal-liability claims.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

The court stated that qualified immunity does not shield defendants from state-law claims. After disposing of all federal claims, however, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

The court’s final disposition was: Thomas’s state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice; judgment was entered against Thomas on his federal claims; and the case was closed. The opinion also states that defendants’ objections to some evidence were overruled as moot and that objections to Thomas’s medical records were overruled.