Civil Rights – Deputy sheriff denied summary judgment in excessive force/battery suit

Where a man sued a sheriff’s deputy for excessive force and battery, and the sheriff claimed his force was not excessive and he was entitled to qualified immunity, the court rejected these arguments. When construing the facts in the plaintiff’s favor, a juror could conclude the force was excessive, in violation of clearly-established law.

Background

Joshua Barricks sued Sheriff Deputy James Wright for excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as well as for common law battery. Wright filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the force he used was not excessive but was only that necessary to arrest Barricks, who had fled and resisted arrest. Moreover, Wright claimed that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

The district court, after assessing the record, which included bodycam video,  identified several disputed facts at the crux of the qualified immunity analysis, including (1) to what extent Barricks posed a threat to Wright; (2) whether Wright pushed Barricks to the ground after he had surrendered; (3) whether Wright used his knuckles to strike Barricks’s face; (4) whether and to what extent Barricks resisted after hitting the ground and (5) whether parts of his body, other than his head, were readily available targets for “distraction strikes.”

The court noted that if the disputed facts were viewed in the light most favorable to Barricks, they would show that he had stopped resisting and no longer posed a threat when he got on his knees and put his hands behind his back, only to then have Wright slam him to the ground and punch him 12 times in the face. If a jury were to make these factual findings, the court concluded, the law was clearly established that Wright could not use that amount of force in those circumstances consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

Standard

In this case, the district court did not adjudicate conclusively whether Wright was entitled to qualified immunity. Rather, it concluded, after a lengthy and careful analysis of the facts of record, that the motion for summary judgment had to be denied because disputes of material fact existed as to whether Wright used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The district court’s assessment of the record evidence is not a matter that this court can review during this interlocutory appeal. This is because the Supreme Court has made clear that an appellate court may not review a district court’s summary judgment order insofar as it determines whether or not the record sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial.

Nonetheless, if this court takes the disputed facts as the district court viewed them in the light most favorable to Barricks and they support, as a matter of law, Wright’s claim that he did not violate clearly established law, this court has jurisdiction to grant him qualified immunity. And whether Wright is entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether, as matter of law, he violated the Fourth Amendment with excessive force and whether a reasonable officer in his position would have so known.

Analysis

In this case, when viewing the disputed facts in the light most favorable to Barricks, Wright pushed Barricks to the ground and pressed his head into the cement floor after Barricks had surrendered by dropping to his knees and putting his hands behind his head. Wright then used his knuckles to strike Barricks 12 times in the head, even though he had surrendered, and, in any event, other parts of his body were available for “distraction strikes.” And this force was applied in the context of non-violent misdemeanors — skateboarding on a public road and possible public intoxication.

Moreover, the evidence taken in
Barricks’ favor also showed that there was no evidence that Barricks posed a threat to Wright with a weapon or otherwise. In short, the facts taken most favorably to Barricks would show that Wright applied gratuitous and injurious force after Barricks had surrendered and was no longer resisting.

With that version of the facts, the district court concluded that Barricks’ constitutional rights would have been violated, identifying five cases demonstrating that the “law was clear that an officer could not use [the] amount of force [Wright used] to subdue a suspect on his knees and not resisting.” With the possible exception of one, this court agrees that this collection of cases clearly establishes that Wright’s use of force would be excessive if the facts taken most favorably to Barricks were established.

Affirmed.

Barricks v. Wright, Case No. 25-1250, March 3, 2026 4th Cir. (Niemeyer), from WDVA at Roanoke (Dillon). Joshua D. Goad for Appellant. David Robert Berry for Appellee. VLW 026-2-068. 12 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-2-068
Virginia Lawyers Weekly