Marquice Savage, proceeding pro se, filed two separate lawsuits against Tulsa County Sheriff's Office officials. In the first case, Savage alleged that officers unconstitutionally injured him during a jail escort in April 2021. He claimed officers dragged him down a hallway despite his complaints of a pre-existing ankle injury, resulting in physical harm. In the second case, Savage alleged a conspiracy to violate his civil rights by charging him with a disciplinary violation and initiating a criminal prosecution based on an assault on another inmate, claiming these actions were taken without probable cause and solely due to his race. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers in the first case and dismissed the second case for failure to timely serve the defendants.
The Tenth Circuit addressed two distinct appeals. In the first appeal regarding the excessive force claim, the court applied the qualified immunity standard, which requires a plaintiff to show both a violation of a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established. The court noted that an excessive force claim requires actual injury that is not de minimis. The record showed only a half-centimeter superficial laceration on Savage's thumb. Crucially, the court found no evidence in the summary judgment record linking this specific injury to the actions of the two remaining defendants, Officers Dobbertin and Sanchez. Savage failed to differentiate their roles from the other officers who were dismissed, and the record established they merely assisted in moving the detainee without causing injury. Consequently, Savage could not meet his burden to overcome qualified immunity. In the second appeal, the court reviewed the dismissal for failure to timely effect service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The court emphasized that it is the plaintiff's responsibility to provide the United States Marshal with the correct address for service. Savage failed to provide these addresses and argued that a former defendant should have disclosed them, but the court found no authority requiring such disclosure, especially since the case was exempt from initial disclosures for unrepresented prisoners. Savage also argued that serving the Sheriff should have sufficed for the individual officers, but the court clarified that this rule applies to state officials in official capacity, not individual defendants whose official capacity claims had already been dismissed. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's dismissal.
The district court's grant of summary judgment and dismissal orders remain in effect. Officers Dobbertin and Sanchez are shielded from liability for the alleged excessive force due to the lack of evidence linking them to a non-de minimis injury. The second lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, but the plaintiff faces significant hurdles in re-filing if service issues are not resolved. The decision reinforces the strict jurisdictional limits of appellate notices and the high burden on pro se plaintiffs to provide specific evidence of causation in qualified immunity cases.