182617P.pdf   12/03/2019  Charles Jackson  v.  Billy D. Stair, III
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  18-2617
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
   [PUBLISHED] [Erickson, Author, with Wollman and Grasz, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff failed to present any evidence to 
   suggest the defendant City of Jacksonville had created, adopted or 
   supported any policy or custom which would demonstrate municipal liability 
   in this excessive force suit; there was no evidence to support a First 
   Amendment claim against the arresting officer, defendant Stair; a 
   reasonable officer in defendant Stair's position could have viewed actions 
   immediately before the first tasing as threatening, resisting arrest and 
   endangering officer safety, and the first tasing was objectively 
   reasonable; with respect to the second tasing, there was a genuine issue 
   of material fact as to whether the tasing amounted to excessive force in 
   light of plaintiff's condition and actions, and the district court erred 
   in granting Stair summary judgment with respect to this claim; the third 
   tasing was objectively reasonable in light of plaintiff's continued 
   refusal to obey the officers' commands and his action in moving towards 
   one of the officers. Judge Wollman, concurring in part and dissenting in 
   part. 
  
182617P.pdf   09/12/2019  Charles Jackson  v.  Billy D. Stair, III
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  18-2617
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
   [PUBLISHED] [Before Erickson, Author, with Wollman and Grasz, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. In this suit filed following an incident in 
   which Jackson was tased and arrested by City of Jacksonville police 
   officers, Jackson failed to present any evidence that the City has 
   created, adopted or supported any policy or custom which would demonstrate 
   municipal liability; to the contrary, the City produced its relevant 
   policies and training materials, showed defendant Stair received specific 
   Taser training and established that it investigated the incident and took 
   further action with respect to Stair's discipline and training; defendant 
   Stair was entitled to summary judgment on Jackson's claim that his actions 
   violated Jackson's First Amendment rights; Jackson's first and third 
   tasings were objectively reasonable as a reasonable officer could have 
   viewed Jackson's actions as threatening, resisting arrest and endangering 
   officer safety; however, the second tasing could be a constitutional 
   violation, and the district court erred in ruling that Stair's conduct as 
   a whole was reasonable without considering whether the second tasing could 
   be a constitutional violation on its own; the matter is remanded for 
   further proceedings as to whether this second tasing amounted to excessive 
   force. Judge Wollman, concurring and dissenting.