Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-wiwd-3_24-cv-00226-1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TIMOTHY M. CANNON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRITTANY WIESE,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
24-cv-226-wmc
Plaintiff Timothy Cannon, proceeding without counsel, contends that Deputy
Brittany Wiese used excessive force against him in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
while breaking up his fight with another inmate at La Crosse County jail. Defendant moves
for summary judgment and for the reasons below, the motion will be granted.
UNDISPUTED FACTS1
On September 10, 2023, Timothy Cannon was an inmate at La Crosse County jail
when he was allegedly attacked by another inmate in the dayroom . Four jail officers
responded to the fight, including the named defendant, Brittany Wiese. When officers
arrived, Cannon and the other inmate were already fighting under a stairway in the
dayroom, with several additional inmates watching. The officers yelled “break it up” to
1 Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are undisputed and drawn from the parties’
proposed findings of facts and responses, as well as video and audio footage from a jail security
camera and two of the responding officer’s body cameras . (Dkt. ##47-1, 47-2.) The court notes
that plaintiff neither responded to defendant’s proposed findings of fact as required by this court’s
summary judgment procedures, nor submitted all the evidence cited in support of his own, proposed
findings of fact. However, given plaintiff’s unrepresented status, the court has considered plaintiff’s
filings and drawn all reasonable inferences in his favor.
Case: 3:24-cv-00226-wmc Document #: 60 Filed: 06/09/26 Page 1 of 7
2
defendant and his opponent, as well as ordered the other inmates back to their cells .
Unfortunately, both orders were disregarded.
As Cannon and the other inmate continued to fight, they fell to the ground with
Cannon on top, still punching the other inmate. Two officers then pulled Cannon off the
other inmate, who was being held by a third officer. Initially, Cannon had only been
partially separated from the other inmate , as he continued to have his arms wrapped
around the other inmate. However, Officer Wiese then grabbed Cannon’s left leg, pulling
him across the floor to separate the two inmates completely.
Even then, Cannon continued to yell, threaten and grab toward the other inmate,
and to grab onto another officer’s arm with his left hand in the scuffle. Officer Wiese
grabbed Cannon’s left arm to remove it from that officer’s arm, as well as restrain Cannon’s
arm behind his back. As Wiese was directing the left arm behind his back, Cannon
continued to resist, then yelled that his arm was “out of place ,” after which Wiese
immediately stopped moving the arm, except to place it on the ground.
Once the two inmates were fully separated and secured, the spectating inmates were
again ordered back to their cells , while medical staff was directed to the dayroom to
evaluate Cannon. Cannon told both the officers and a jail nurse that he thought he had
hit his should er on the stair rail. After examining Cannon, the jail nurse recommended
that he be taken to the hospital , where Cannon was diagnosed with a dislocated and
Case: 3:24-cv-00226-wmc Document #: 60 Filed: 06/09/26 Page 2 of 7
3
fractured shoulder that would ultimately require surgery to repair.2 Cannon continues to
suffer from ongoing physical pain and mental distress as a result of the incident.
OPINION
Plaintiff is proceeding on a single claim in this lawsuit: defendant Wiese used
excessive force in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights when she pulled on his
left arm in an attempt to restrain it.3 Defendant contends that plaintiff’s claim fails because
her use of force was reasonable under the circumstances or, at the very least, is protected
by qualified immunity.4 On a motion for summary judgment, the question is whether there
are any genuine factual disputes that could make a difference to the outcome of the case,
or, stated another way, whether a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party, after
drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
2 Defendant submitted an expert report from Dr. Amin Afsari, an orthopedic surgeon, who opines
that defendant did not cause plaintiff’s shoulder injuries, which seems likely given how he reports
his arm being “out of place” in what looks like a fairly standard attempt at a restraint hold by
Deputy Wiese. (Dkt. #48). See J. Kao, M.D., et al., Incidence of recurrence after shoulder dislocation: a
nationwide database study , Vol. 27 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surger y, Issue 8, pp. 1519 -25
(August 2018). However, because the court ultimately concludes that a jury would have to find
defendant’s use of force was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, the
expert report is immaterial to the outcome of this case and will not be addressed further.
3 At the screening stage of this case, the court denied plaintiff’s request to proceed on additional
federal and state law claims against several, other defendants, including another jail officer, the jail
captain, the La Crosse County Sheriff, the City of La Crosse and La Crosse County. (Dkt. #20.)
For reasons explained in the screening order, plaintiff’s allegations were not sufficient to state a
claim for relief against any of those defendants. Plaintiff subsequently filed a proposed sixth
amended complaint, seeking to revive his claims against the dismissed defendants. (Dkt. #28.)
That motion will be denied because his proposed amended complaint still fails to state any viable
claim for relief against those other defendants.
4 Because the court concludes that no reasonable jury could find that defendant used excessive force
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court need not separately address defendant’s
qualified immunity defense.
Case: 3:24-cv-00226-wmc Document #: 60 Filed: 06/09/26 Page 3 of 7
4
U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Loudermilk v. Best Pallet Co., LLC, 636 F.3d 312, 314-15 (7th Cir.
2011); Montgomery v. American Airlines, Inc., 626 F.3d 382, 389 (7th Cir. 2010).
Because he was a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident, plaintiff’s claim is
governed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 350-
53 (7th Cir. 2018); Ortiz v. City of Chicago, 656 F.3d 523, 530 (7th Cir. 2011) . Jail staff
violates the Fourteenth Amendment if their actions are “objectively unreasonable” under
the totality of the circumstances. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 396 -400 (2015).
This determination is to be made “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,
including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id.
at 397.
In particular, courts must “account for the legitimate interests that stem from the
government’s need to manage the facility in which the individual is detained, appropriately
deferring to policies and practices that in the judgment of jail officials are needed to
preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and alterations omitted). “Not every push or shove, even if it may later
seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates a prisoner’s con stitutional
rights.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). Among others, relevant factors to be
considered from the perspective of an objective correctional officer include:
the relationship between the need for the use of force and the
amount of force used; the extent of the plaintiff ’s injury; any
effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of
force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat
reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff
was actively resisting.
Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 397 (citations omitted).
Case: 3:24-cv-00226-wmc Document #: 60 Filed: 06/09/26 Page 4 of 7
5
When considering those factors here, along with the benefit of fairly definitive video
and audio footage of the incident, an impartial jury would be compelled to find defendant’s
use of force was objectively reasonable. In particular, jail officers responding to a rapidly
deteriorating situation were immediately confronted with a serious safety and security risk,
including two inmates brawling in an open area despite being ordered to stop, near other
inmates who were observing and refusing to disperse. 5 Thus, any objective officer would
have taken similar steps to take control of the situation by separating and restraining the
fighting inmates while ordering others to go to their cells . When verbal commands were
unsuccessful, an objective officer would also have joined the other jail officers in using
physical force to stop the fight.
Even after the two inmates were separated, a reasonable officer likewise would have
concluded that it was necessary to restrain plaintiff because he continued wrestling against
control, as well as attempting combative movements and making death threats , while
grabbing another officer’s arm. Given these circumstances, it was reasonable for defendant
to first pull plaintiff off the other inmate by his leg, and second to grab his arm to remove
his grip from another officer, then attempt to restrain it behind his back. Finally, from the
audio and video footage, no reasonable jury could find that defendant’s actions were overly
aggressive or done with an intent to harm . T o the contrary, she remained professional
throughout the encounter , appears to have used the amount of force necessary to gain
5 In fairness, the reaction of the other inmates was essentially passive, mainly watching the fight
unfold between the two inmates, then between those same two inmates and the officers. Still, by
remaining as onlookers, rather than following orders to go to their cells, the danger of other inmates
joining in (who outnumber the officers) cannot be discounted.
Case: 3:24-cv-00226-wmc Document #: 60 Filed: 06/09/26 Page 5 of 7
6
plaintiff’s compliance, and when plaintiff continued to resist actively, she reasonably pulled
his arm back with both wrists in an attempt to control it. Plus, as soon as plaintiff reported
his shoulder was out of place , she immediately released his arm. Under the se
circumstances, no reasonable jury could find that defendant used excessive force. E.g., Boyd
v. Pollard, 621 Fed. App’x 352 (7th Cir. 2015) (“no juror who viewed the video could
reasonably conclude -- given the professional behavior of the gu ards” and type of injury
sustained by the plaintiff that the guards used excessive force in the manner plaintiff
alleged).6
Plaintiff’s negligence claim against defendant fails for the same reason. A negligence
claim under Wisconsin law includes the following four elements: (1) a breach of (2) a duty
owed (3) that causes (4) harm to the plaintiff. Paul v. Skemp, 2001 WI 42, ¶ 17, 242 Wis.
2d 507, 625 N.W.2d 860. Based on the undisputed facts as shown in the video and audio
footage, no reasonable jury could find that defendant breached any duty to plaintiff.
Rather, she acted appropriately to help restrain a resisting inmate. To the extent the
maneuver may have been imperfect, no officer can be held liable under such a high standard
while trying to gain compliance. Accordingly, the court will grant summary judgment to
defendant in full.
6 In Boyd, the plaintiff alleged that guards, when outside the camera’s view, had attacked him by
slamming his body to the floor and issuing numerous blows to his head and face. 621 Fed. Appx.
at 356. However, the plaintiff’s injury – a small laceration above his eye – was minimal. Although
plaintiff’s injury in this case was more substantial, no juror could conclude based on defendant’s
conduct or use of force captured on the video that she used excessive force.
Case: 3:24-cv-00226-wmc Document #: 60 Filed: 06/09/26 Page 6 of 7
7
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Timothy Cannon’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (dkt. #28)
is DENIED as futile.
2. Defendant Brittany Wiese’s motion for summary judgment (dkt. #42) is
GRANTED.
3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment for defendant and close this case.
Entered this 9th day of June, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00226-wmc Document #: 60 Filed: 06/09/26 Page 7 of 7