BUCHANAN v. POLICE DEPT.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

TERRY BUCHANAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 2:20-cv-00691-JPH-MJD

)

SCHRIVER Officer, Badge #281, )

MCKINNEY Officer; Badge #284, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Terry Buchanan alleges that Terre Haute police officers used excessive

force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they arrested him. Dkt. 1.

The officers have moved for summary judgment. Dkt. [24]. For the reasons

that follow, that motion is GRANTED.

I.

Facts and Background

Because the officers have moved for summary judgment under Rule

56(a), the Court views and recites the evidence "in the light most favorable to

the non-moving party and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in that party's

favor." Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

Mr. Buchanan has not responded to the summary judgment motion, so the

Court treats the officers' supported factual assertions as uncontested. See

Hinterberger v. City of Indianapolis, 966 F.3d 523, 527 (7th Cir. 2020); S.D.

Ind. L.R. 56-1(b), (f). Although the Court liberally construes pro se pleadings,

"even those who are pro se must follow court rules and directives." McInnis v.

Duncan, 697 F.3d 661, 665 (7th Cir. 2012).

On November 8, 2020, Terre Haute Police Officers Bryan McKinney and

Kelby Shriver responded to complaints about someone acting strange and

refusing to leave a gas station in Terre Haute. Dkt. 24-7, ¶ 7; dkt. 24-8, ¶ 7.

Responding to the call, the officers observed Mr. Buchanan walking in the

travel lanes of Fort Harrison Road. Dkt. 24-7, ¶ 9. Although the temperature

was in the 50s, Mr. Buchanan was not wearing a shirt, socks, or shoes. Id.

Mr. Buchanan had scratch marks on his chest and back, and made strange

statements, including that he was "King of New England" and that he was

looking for his pet hyena. Id. ¶ 10. Believing that Mr. Buchanan was "in an

altered state of mind," Officer McKinney handcuffed and detained him. Id. ¶

10.

Mr. Buchanan refused the officers' request to enter their patrol vehicle,

so they attempted to force him inside. Id. ¶ 12. Mr. Buchanan continued to

resist, kicking Officer Schriver multiple times as they forced him into the car.

Id. Officer Schriver tased him in response, but it did not appear to affect Mr.

Buchanan, who continued to struggle and kick Officer Schriver. Id.

Officer Schriver then removed Mr. Buchanan from the car, and Mr.

Buchanan attempted to break away from the officers. Dkt. 24-8, ¶¶ 15–16.

Officer McKinney used a leg sweep technique to take him to the ground. Dkt.

24-7, ¶ 13. Mr. Buchanan then struck Officer McKinney with his right knee,

and Officer Shriver tased him again. Id. ¶ 14. Eventually, with the assistance

of a third officer who arrived at the scene, the officers subdued Mr. Buchanan.

Id. Officer McKinney then transported him to the Vigo County Jail, which sent

him to Union Hospital in Terre Haute to be medically cleared. Id. ¶¶ 15–16.

Mr. Buchanan later pled guilty to battery against a public safety official. Dkt.

24-6 (judgment of conviction); Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.

Acting pro se, Mr. Buchanan filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging that the officers used excessive force when they arrested him. Dkt. 1.

The officers have moved for summary judgment, dkt. 24, and Mr. Buchanan

has not responded.

II.

Applicable Law

Summary judgment shall be granted "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 must

inform the court "of the basis for its motion" and specify evidence

demonstrating "the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp.

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party meets this

burden, the nonmoving party must "go beyond the pleadings" and identify

"specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324.

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the

evidence "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw[s] all

reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Zerante, 555 F.3d at 584 (citation

omitted).

III.

Analysis

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the officers argue that

the amount of force used in connection with arresting Mr. Buchanan was

objectively reasonable, that they are entitled to qualified immunity, and that

Mr. Buchanan did not suffer any damages.1 Dkt. 27. Mr. Buchanan has not

responded. Dkt. 24-1, ¶ 9.

An "excessive force claim . . . is most properly characterized as one

invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens

the right ‘to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures’

of the person.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989) (citation omitted).

Under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, courts

must "balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's

Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental

interests alleged to justify the intrusion." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 383

(2007).

When evaluating whether the force used was excessive, the Court looks

"to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity

of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the

safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or

attempting to evade arrest by flight." Graham, 490 U.S. at 396.

1 When the defense of qualified immunity is raised, the Court has discretion to

determine if a constitutional violation occurred before addressing whether the law was

clearly established. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236.

Here, the undisputed facts show that Mr. Buchanan struggled and

kicked Officer Schriver multiple times while the officers attempted to place him

into the patrol vehicle. Dkt. 24-7, ¶ 11–12. Mr. Buchanan also attempted to

walk away from the officers while being detained and kneed Officer McKinney

after the officers took him to the ground. Id. at ¶ 13–14. Based on these facts,

Mr. Buchanan pled guilty to battery against a public safety official. Dkt. 24-6

(judgment of conviction); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-2-1. These undisputed facts

show that Mr. Buchanan actively resisted arrest and posed an immediate

threat of bodily harm to Officers McKinney and Schriver. Graham, 490 U.S. at

396.

The reasoning in United States v. Norris, 640 F.3d 295, 303 (7th Cir.

2011), is equally applicable here. In Norris, two officers approached a suspect

outside of his home while executing a search warrant and the suspect

responded by turning to run inside his house. Id. at 302–03. The officers

ordered him to stop, and not only did he ignore that command, but he also

reached toward his waistband "out of view of the officers." Id. at 303. One of

the officers then tased the suspect. Id. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the

reasonableness of the officer's conduct because the suspect "displayed an

unwillingness to accede to reasonable police commands, and his actions

suggested an intent to use violence to fend off further police action." Id.; see

also Clarett v. Roberts, 657 F.3d 664, 674–75 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirming jury

verdict finding that an officer's decision to tase plaintiff three times was

reasonable because the plaintiff was flailing, kicking the officer, and resisting

arrest).

As in Norris, the undisputed facts show that Mr. Buchanan repeatedly

ignored police commands and exhibited behavior that threatened escalated

violence if the officers did not employ some level of force. Based on these

undisputed facts, no reasonable juror could find the use of the taser was

unreasonable, and therefore, the officers are entitled summary judgment on

Mr. Buchanan's excessive force claim.

IV.

Conclusion

The officers’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Dkt. [24].

Final judgment shall issue by separate entry.

SO ORDERED.

Date: 8/18/2022

Sjamnu Pataick Hanbor

James Patrick Hanlon

United States District Judge

Distribution: Southern District of Indiana

TERRY BUCHANAN

1330 Lafayette

Terre Haute, IN 47807

Mark Douglas Hassler

HUNT HASSLER & LORENZ, LLP

hassler@hkmlawfirm.com

Jacob H. Miller

HUNT HASSLER LORENZ KONDRAS LLP

jmiller@hkmlawfirm.com