A man arrested as a suspect in a double homicide sued an officer, claiming that while he was being transported she had kicked him in the face and hit him with a flashlight. In the civil rights lawsuit, the plaintiff fired his appointed lawyer, acting as his own attorney but later brought the lawyer back. He told the judge that he was ok with proceeding with the jury despite the fact that they had seen him arguing with his lawyer, and the jury returned a verdict for the officer. A federal appeals court ruled that he had waived his right to challenge a jury he had tried at the beginning to have removed for cause when he gave seemingly contradictory statements about whether he had ever been involved in the justice system. Washington v. Parkinson, #12-3042, 737 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2013).
     The Arkansas State Police were entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity on claims arising out of a state trooper's alleged use of excessive force in striking a motorist with a metal flashlight while arresting him following a high-speed pursuit. The individual trooper, however, was not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. The plaintiff claimed that he was hit with the flashlight after he was already on the ground and complying with the trooper's orders, and the use of force took place outside the view of the trooper's dash camera. The factual discrepancies between the trooper's and motorist's versions of the incident had to be resolved by a jury. Coker v. Arkansas State Police, #12-3601, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 22420 (8th Cir.).
     An arrestee claimed that three officers violated his constitutional right of access to the courts by refusing to disclose who used excessive force against him in the course of his arrest. He believed that one or more of six officers on the scene threw him to the ground and struck him several times in the back of his left thigh with a baton or flashlight. Because he was face-down on the ground, he could not identify the officer or officers responsible. He also argued that the city violated that same right by adopting a "conspiracy of silence" concerning such disclosure, preventing him from knowing who to sue. While the federal appeals court assumed, for purposes of the appeal, that the officers' alleged conduct was unconstitutional, it found that the issue of whether an evidentiary cover-up by officers could violate an individual's right of access to the courts was not clearly established. The officers, therefore, were entitled to qualified immunity, but the city was not entitled to summary judgment since the claims against it were not "inextricably intertwined" with the claims against the officers. Lynch v. Barrett, #12-1222, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 290 (10th Circuit).
     A reasonable officer would know that administering closed-fist punches and flashlight blows to the head, after an arrestee was handcuffed, and continuing to strike him after he had stopped resisting arrest -- and failing to place him in the proper position after hobbling him -- was excessive force. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Sallenger v. Oakes, #05-3470, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 436, 2007 WL 60422 (7th Cir.) [N/R]
     Conviction of arrestee for assaulting arresting officers barred his bringing a lawsuit for use of excessive force Roberts v. City of Maplewood Chief of Police, 710 F.Supp. 1283 (E.D. Mo 1989).
     No liability to city, chief or officer for severe injuries to arrestee struck with flashlight Wellington v. Daniels, 717 F.2d 932 (4th Cir. 1983).
     Punitive damage award of over $21,000 reversed absent proof of litigation expenses Gagne v. Town of Enfield, 734 F.2d 902 (2nd Cir. 1984).
     Mother awarded $5,000 for being struck with flashlight when made inquiries about son's arrest; exigent circumstances permitted warrantless entry onto neighbor's yard Keyes v. City of Albany, 594 F.Supp. 1147 (N.D.NY 1984).
     No showing of excessive force with flashlight during arrest for public intoxication Wing v. Britton, 748 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1984).
     City's discovering plaintiff's claim for worker's compensation gave it advantage in obtaining dismissal of assault suit Davis v. Forrest, 768 F.2d 257 (8th Cir. 1985).
     " See also: Administrative Liability: General