Partridge et al v. Benton Arkansas, City of et al

Filing 157

ORDER granting 149 Motion for Judgment NOV; vacating 146 verdicts against City of Benton and former police chief Kirk Lane; and dismissing all claims against them with prejudice. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 4/9/2024.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
PIPER PARTRIDGE, individually
and as next of kin to KEAGAN SCHWEIKLE
and as special administratrix of the ESTATE
of KEAGAN SCHWEIKLE; DOMINIC
SCHWEIKLE, individually as father and next
of kin to KEAGAN SCHWEIKLE
v.

PLAINTIFFS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00460-BSM

CITY OF BENTON, ARKANSAS;
KYLE ELLISON; and KIRK LANE

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law [Doc. No. 149] submitted by the
City of Benton and its former police chief Kirk Lane is granted, the verdicts entered against
them are vacated, and all claims against them are dismissed with prejudice.
The parents of Keagan Schweikle sued the City, Lane, and police officer Kyle Ellison
following Ellison’s fatal shooting of Schweikle. After six days of trial, an eleven-person jury
returned a verdict in favor of Ellison, finding that he neither used excessive force, nor did he
batter or assault Schweikle. The jury, however, returned a verdict against the City and Lane
on plaintiffs’ claims that they failed to adequately train their officers and to investigate prior
accusations of excessive force. Jury Verdict, Doc. No. 146. The question presented is
whether the City and Lane can be held liable for failing to adequately train their officers and
for failing to adequately investigate prior accusations of excessive force when the officer
who used deadly force against Schweikle did not violate his rights.

The answer is no. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986);
Swink v. City of Pagedale, 810 F.2d 791, 794–95 (8th Cir. 1987). The City and Lane cannot
be held liable for Schweikle’s unfortunate death because there was no underlying violation
of Schweikle’s rights. See Smith v. Kilgore, 926 F.3d 479, 486 (8th Cir. 2019) (Monell claim
properly dismissed in lawsuit by mother of man fatally shot by police officers because there
was no constitutional violation by an individual officer and the fact that the decedent began
to raise his gun toward officers would alone justify deadly force); McCoy v. City of
Monticello, 411 F.3d 920, 922–23 (8th Cir. 2005) (city cannot be held liable unless the
defendant police officer is found liable on an underlying substantive claim); Roe v. Humke,
128 F.3d 1213, 1218 (8th Cir. 1997) (police chief cannot be held liable given absence of
underlying violation of constitutional rights). Therefore, judgment must be entered for the
City and Lane even if Ellison’s use of force against Schweikle resulted from specific rules
or regulations of the City and Lane because Ellison did not violate Schweikle’s rights. See
Heller, 475 U.S. at 799 (“the fact that the departmental regulations might have authorized
the use of constitutionally excessive force is quite beside the point”).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of April, 2024.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2