Forest Kingcade v. Tim Trowbridge

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-3172
___________________________
Forest Conan Kingcade
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Tim Trowbridge, Captain; Brandon Moore, Officer; Mark Dennis, Cpl.; Alan
Campbell, Officer; Phillip Caldwell, Sgt.; Steven Gregory
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
____________
Submitted: January 25, 2017
Filed: February 27, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Missouri inmate Forest Conan Kingcade appeals the district court’s adverse
grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against six police officers
arising from his arrest in 2014. Viewing the record in a light most favorable to Mr.
Kingcade, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, we reverse in part and
affirm in part. See Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d 830, 836 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo
review). Specifically, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary
judgment on Mr. Kingcade’s claims of deliberate indifference. See Corwin v. City
of Independence, Mo., 829 F.3d 695, 698 (8th Cir. 2016) (to establish deliberate
indifference, pretrial detainee must show he suffered from objectively serious medical
need, and that defendants knew of, yet disregarded, that need); Barton v. Taber, 820
F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016) (to be objectively serious, medical need must have been
diagnosed by doctor as requiring treatment, or be so obvious that layperson would
easily see necessity for doctor’s attention).
We disagree with the district court, however, that the claims of excessive force
(and the related failure-to-intervene claims) were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994). See Colbert v. City of Monticello, Ark., 775 F.3d 1006, 1007 (8th
Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (there is no inherent conflict between finding that police
officers used excessive force in effectuating arrest, and conviction for resisting arrest
and harassment of police officer; state court’s determination that individual resisted
lawful arrest may coexist with finding that officers used excessive force to subdue
him). Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on the deliberate-
indifference claims, but we reverse as to the claims of excessive force and failure to
intervene, and as to those claims, we remand for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.1
______________________________
1
Mr. Kingcade has affirmatively waived his remaining claim.
-2-