Cody S. Howard v. Bruner, Officer, Pulaski County Jail

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2808
___________________________
Cody S. Howard
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Bruner, Officer, Pulaski County Jail
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: May 14, 2025
Filed: May 19, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Cody Howard appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment
in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force by a jail guard while
1The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable
Benecia Moore, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

he was detained on a probation revocation warrant. Upon careful de novo review, we
affirm. See Hall v. Higgins, 77 F.4th 1171, 1178 (8th Cir. 2023) (standard of review).
We agree with the district court that no reasonable jury could find that the defendant
jail officer’s administration of a short burst of pepper spray constituted a malicious
and sadistic attempt to harm Howard under the circumstances, even if arguably
superior alternatives existed. See Jackson v. Gutzmer, 866 F.3d 969, 974-75 (8th Cir.
2017) (evidence that officer arguably erred in judgment in deciding to use force falls
far short of showing there was no plausible basis for belief that force was necessary);
Walker v. Bowersox, 526 F.3d 1186, 1188 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (officers may
reasonably use force in good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but not
maliciously or sadistically to cause harm; courts may consider need for applying
force, relationship between that need and amount of force used, threat officer
reasonably perceived, any efforts used to diminish severity of forceful response, and
extent of injury inflicted).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Howard’s pending
motions.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --