Michelle Anderson v. Andy Neyrinck

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-2246
___________________________
Michelle Anderson
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Andy Neyrinck, Individually and employed by City of Davenport; Scott Crowe,
Individually and employed by City of Davenport
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
____________
Submitted: January 25, 2017
Filed: January 30, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by Michelle Anderson, Davenport
Police Department officers Andy Neyrinck and Scott Crowe appeal an order of the
district court denying them qualified immunity. After careful review, we affirm in
part and reverse in part.
First, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Neyrinck
qualified immunity on Anderson’s unlawful-arrest claim. See Shannon v. Koehler,
616 F.3d 855, 861 (8th Cir. 2010) (acknowledging interlocutory appellate jurisdiction
to review denial of qualified immunity; appellate review is limited to determining
whether conduct, as supported under summary judgment standard, violated plaintiff’s
clearly established rights); Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557, 564 (8th Cir. 2009)
(legal issues are reviewed de novo). By contrast, we conclude that the court erred in
denying Crowe and Neyrinck qualified immunity on Anderson’s excessive-force
claim. Without considering the factual allegations in Anderson’s unsworn and
unverified complaint, see Banks v. John Deere & Co., 829 F.3d 661, 668 (8th Cir.
2016) (discussing technical requirements for unsworn declaration or statement to be
substituted for sworn affidavit for summary judgment purposes), we conclude--based
on the evidence in the summary judgment record--that Anderson’s excessive-force
claim failed as a matter of law, cf. Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898, 906-08
(8th Cir. 2011) (discussing excessive-force standard in handcuffing context).
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of summary judgment as to the unlawful-
arrest claim against Neyrinck, but we reverse the denial of summary judgment as to
the excessive-force claim against Crowe and Neyrinck.
______________________________
-2-