# Cheryl D. Lyons v. City of Xenia, Christine Keith, Officer Matthew Foubert, Officer

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · August 4, 2005 · 417 F.3d 565

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9498218

## Case

- **Full name:** Cheryl D. LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF XENIA, Et Al., Defendants, Christine Keith, Officer; Matthew Foubert, Officer, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 4, 2005
- **Citations:** 417 F.3d 565; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16034; 2005 WL 1846994
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gibbons
- **Judges:** Gibbons, Sutton, Tarnow
- **Cited by:** 240 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9498218

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that a police officer who tackled the plaintiff was entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff’s excessive force claim, where, given the particular facts of that case, the violation was not obvious and no precedent “squarely govern[ed] the case here” (quoting Bros…
- finding that tackling of plaintiff did not amount to excessive force when the officer responded to a distressed call for backup help from a fellow officer and entered the house to find the plaintiff and the officer in close proximity and yelling at each other
- holding that the Fourth Amendment bars too-tight handcuffing where a plaintiff 17 demonstrates some physical injury from the handcuffing and officers ignored complaints
- holding that violation of a No. 16-2102 Sumpter v. Wayne Cty. Page 14 “‘clearly established’ constitutional right” occurs “where the violation was sufficiently ‘obvious’ under the general standards of constitutional care”
- recognizing that, “[i]n ascertaining whether a constitutional violation occurred, the only question is whether [the officer] had probable cause — not whether the evidence would be sufficient to support a conviction”

## Opinion text

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with all of Judge Sutton’s main opinion except its conclusion in Part II.C.l. that there is no genuine issue of fact as to whether Officer Foubert’s conduct in tackling Lyons was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. In my view, the evidence presented by Lyons permits a jury finding that Foubert did not have a reasonable basis for believing that Officer Keith’s safety depended on his use of physical force against Lyons in the form of tackling. Thus, I do not believe that the issue of whether Foubert unconstitutionally used excessive force can be resolved in the summary judgment context. Nevertheless, because I agree that Foubert is entitled to qualified immunity on the tackling claim for the reasons stated in Judge Sutton’s opinion, I concur. I also concur in Judge Sutton’s separate concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9498218. Public record. Not legal advice.