A federal appeals court has affirmed a decision granting summary judgment to Minneapolis and a police officer in a lawsuit stemming from a protest injury that occurred days after George Floyd’s death, concluding that no reasonable jury could find the officer intended to strike the plaintiff with a projectile.
In an opinion filed earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the dismissal of federal claims brought by Ewan Leask, who was struck in the head by a 40mm foam projectile while observing protests near the Minneapolis Third Precinct Police Department headquarters.
The court also affirmed the district court’s decision to decline jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
According to the ruling, the incident occurred two days after Floyd’s death, when protests escalated near the Third Precinct.
Some individuals in the crowd threw objects at police officers. Officer Jeffrey Pennaz, positioned on the precinct’s roof with a 40mm projectile launcher, fired toward a group of protestors after observing objects being thrown.
Leask, who lived nearby, had gone to watch the protest and was standing in an AutoZone parking lot across the street, recording on his phone.
A tree and a traffic signal partially obstructed him from Pennaz’s view. A projectile fired by Pennaz traveled approximately 178 feet and struck Leask in the head, causing a laceration that required staples.
Leask subsequently filed suit under federal civil rights law and Minnesota state law, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, retaliation under the First Amendment and negligence.
The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims, finding insufficient evidence that Pennaz intended to hit Leask and dismissed the state claims without prejudice.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit conducted a de novo review and agreed with the lower court’s conclusions.
Central to the court’s decision was the determination that Leask was not “seized” under the Fourth Amendment because the evidence did not support a finding that Pennaz used force with the intent to restrain him.
The court noted that a seizure requires intentional use of force, and accidental force does not meet that standard.
It noted that Leask was approximately 178 feet away, well beyond the launcher’s effective range of 131 feet, and that even Leask’s own expert testified it would be unlikely for Pennaz to hit an intended target at that distance.
Additionally, video evidence showed multiple people in the area and confirmed that Pennaz’s line of sight was obstructed.
Based on that record, the court found no genuine dispute of material fact and concluded that Pennaz did not intend to strike Leask. As a result, the Fourth Amendment claim failed.
The appellate court also rejected Leask’s First Amendment retaliation claim, which required proof that Pennaz specifically targeted him because of his protected expression.
The court found that the assertion was contradicted by the same evidence demonstrating a lack of visibility and intent.
Because no constitutional violation occurred, the court ruled that claims against the Minneapolis also failed. Without an underlying constitutional violation, there could be no municipal liability under federal law.
Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, noting that such claims are typically dismissed when all federal claims are resolved at summary judgment.
U.S. Court of Appeaks for the Eighth Circuit case number: 25-1361
