Cheezy Pulliam v. Earnest Chad Rash

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied defendant Earnest Chad Rash’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Cheezy Pulliam’s individual-capacity claims, except for the outrage claim, and granted summary judgment on all official-capacity claims. The court held that genuine factual disputes remained regarding whether Rash kicked Pulliam in the head while he was handcuffed, but found insufficient evidence of municipal ratification or a widespread unconstitutional custom.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was denied because the video and other evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Rash kicked Pulliam in the head while Pulliam was lying on the ground in handcuffs. A reasonable jury could find that such force was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and Arkansas Civil Rights Act excessive-force claims are analyzed identically to § 1983 claims.
2. Rash was not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage because, if he kicked Pulliam in the head while Pulliam was lying on the ground in handcuffs, that conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.
3. Summary judgment was denied on Pulliam's assault and battery claims because a reasonable juror could find that Rash intentionally kicked Pulliam and intended to cause harmful contact.
4. Summary judgment was denied because whether kicking a person in the head creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury, as required for aggravated assault-based liability, was a question for the jury.
5. Summary judgment was granted on the outrage claim because Pulliam waived the claim by maintaining it in his response without making any argument concerning it.
6. Summary judgment was granted on the official-capacity ratification theory because the mayor was not shown to be the final policymaker for the police department and, in any event, did not specifically approve or ratify Rash's alleged conduct.
7. Summary judgment was granted because Pulliam failed as a matter of law to show a continuing and widespread pattern of similar unconstitutional misconduct, notice or tacit authorization by municipal policymakers, and causation between any custom and his injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether Rash used excessive force by kicking Pulliam in the head while Pulliam was handcuffed on the ground.
2. Whether Rash was entitled to qualified immunity on the individual-capacity excessive-force claim.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on Pulliam's assault and battery claims.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper on Pulliam's Civil Action by a Crime Victim Act claim.
5. Whether Pulliam waived his outrage claim by failing to argue it in response to summary judgment.
6. Whether Pulliam presented sufficient evidence of municipal policy, custom, ratification, notice, and causation to support official-capacity liability.

Disposition

other