Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa
Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa
Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
B. Procedural Background<br />
On August 1, 2008, Plaintiff Timothy <strong>Shannon</strong> filed a Complaint (docket no. 2)<br />
with this court concerning an incident that took place on September 13, 2006, naming<br />
Officer Michael <strong>Koehler</strong>, the City <strong>of</strong> Sioux City, 3 and Police Chief Joseph Frisbie as<br />
defendants (collectively, the “defendants”). In Count 1, <strong>Shannon</strong> alleges that <strong>Koehler</strong> used<br />
excessive force in arresting him, in violation <strong>of</strong> the Fourth Amendment <strong>of</strong> the United<br />
States Constitution. <strong>Shannon</strong> brings a cause <strong>of</strong> action for this violation under 42 U.S.C.<br />
§ 1983. <strong>Shannon</strong> claims that Defendants City <strong>of</strong> Sioux City and Chief Frisbie are liable<br />
under § 1983 because they allegedly established, authorized, or tolerated policies and<br />
practices that were intended to and did encourage, endorse, and permit their agents and<br />
employees to violate <strong>Shannon</strong>’s, and other similarly situated individuals’, constitutional<br />
rights. In Count 2, <strong>Shannon</strong> alleges that all defendants, directly or through respondeat<br />
superior liability, committed assault and battery.<br />
On August 31, 2009, the defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment and<br />
Request for Oral Argument and accompanying filings. (docket no. 31.) The defendants<br />
alleged that <strong>Koehler</strong> was entitled to qualified immunity on all counts, including the state<br />
assault and battery charges. In addition, the defendants claimed that, even if <strong>Koehler</strong>’s<br />
actions were unconstitutional, <strong>Shannon</strong> could not meet his burden to demonstrate that the<br />
City or Chief Frisbie tolerated an unconstitutional policy, practice, or custom <strong>of</strong> failing to<br />
train and supervise <strong>of</strong>ficers. I denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, in<br />
3 <strong>Shannon</strong> also named the Sioux City Police Department as a defendant. See docket<br />
no. 2. However, I granted the Sioux City Police Department’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to<br />
Dismiss Sioux City Police Department, as it is not a suable entity but simply a subdivision<br />
<strong>of</strong> a municipality. See <strong>Shannon</strong> v. <strong>Koehler</strong>, No. C 08-4059-MWB, 2008 WL 4735265<br />
at*5 (N.D. <strong>Iowa</strong> Oct. 13, 2008). Thus, the Sioux City Police Department is no longer a<br />
named party.<br />
7