Joshua Hollamon v. County of Wright

Joshua Hollamon v. County of Wright · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · March 17, 2026 · No. No. 24-2795

Summary

The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Sergeant Dustin Miller in Joshua Hollamon’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force action arising from the use of pepperballs during a pipeline-construction protest. The court assumed without deciding that Hollamon was seized and held that Miller’s use of force was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and protected by qualified immunity. A concurring opinion would have affirmed solely because the evidence did not establish that the pepperball deployment constituted a seizure.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Grasz, Circuit Judge; Benton, Circuit Judge; Kelly, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decision date
March 17, 2026
Docket number
No. 24-2795
Procedural posture
Appeal from a grant of summary judgment for Sergeant Dustin Miller on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim, with qualified immunity also granted in the alternative.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity de novo. Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
Published and precedential
Parties
Joshua Hollamon v. County of Wright, Dustin Miller, in his official and individual capacities
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

qualified immunitysection 1983civil rightspolice misconductstandard of review

Practice areas

constitutional lawcivil rightspolice misconductmunicipal liabilityappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Sergeant Miller's firing of pepperballs at Hollamon constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
  2. Whether Sergeant Miller's use of pepperballs was objectively unreasonable excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.
  3. Whether Sergeant Miller was entitled to qualified immunity.
  4. Whether Hollamon could maintain a Monell claim against the County of Wright.

Holdings

  1. The court assumed without deciding that a seizure occurred and resolved the appeal on the reasonableness of the force.
  2. Sergeant Miller's use of pepperballs was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and therefore did not violate Hollamon's Fourth Amendment rights.
  3. On this record, the pepperballs were not deadly force.
  4. Sergeant Miller was entitled to summary judgment and qualified immunity because Hollamon failed to establish a constitutional violation and, in any event, the unlawfulness of Miller's conduct was not clearly established.
  5. The County of Wright was not liable under Monell because Hollamon failed to assert the claim in the district court and, alternatively, there was no underlying constitutional violation.

Key quotations

We evaluate the use of force based on an objective reasonableness standard, undertaking “a fact-intensive inquiry.” (4)
Here, we conclude Sergeant Miller’s use of force was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. (5)
Sergeant Miller’s use of pepperballs against Hollamon was reasonable under these circumstances, and he is thus entitled to summary judgment. (8)

Factual background

During a July 2021 protest against pipeline construction in northern Minnesota, Hollamon and other protesters breached an outer barbed-wire fence and entered a restricted area between two fences. The protesters had been warned not to cross, continued advancing toward the construction site and officers, and attempted to breach the inner fence while carrying equipment used to lock themselves to machinery. Sergeant Miller fired pepperballs from a distance, later switched to chemical spray, and Hollamon was eventually arrested after continuing to participate in the protest and attempting to flee officers.

Procedural history

Hollamon sued Sergeant Miller and the County of Wright after Miller fired pepperballs during a pipeline-construction protest. The district court granted summary judgment for Miller, concluding that Miller did not seize Hollamon and that, even if a seizure occurred, Miller was entitled to qualified immunity; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over Hollamon's state-law assault and battery claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…