Kevin Edward Lyons, Jr. v. Brent Dilge

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 17, 2025*
Decided July 17, 2025
Before
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-3300
KEVIN EDWARD LYONS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRENT DILGE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 23-cv-730
Stephen C. Dries,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Kevin Lyons appeals the summary-judgment decision rejecting his claim that
three police officers from the Shawano Police Department in Wisconsin used excessive
force in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-3300 Page 2
district court entered summary judgment for the defendants because no reasonable jury
could conclude that the force used by the officers was excessive. We affirm.
In December 2022, Lyons’s mother called the police to request a welfare check on
Lyons, who was living in a tent. Officers Brent Dilge and Tyler Steenbock went to
perform the check, which was recorded on their body cameras. Although Lyons’s
characterization of events differs somewhat from the video, because the video clearly
settles the disputed points, we can rely on it. See Pryor v. Corrigan, 124 F.4th 475, 483–84
(7th Cir. 2024) (citing Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)). The officers saw Lyons’s
feet sticking out of his tent. The officers announced their presence and called Lyons’s
name several times, but he did not respond. Steenbock picked up an empty plastic
water bottle and tossed it at Lyons’s feet. When Lyons still did not respond, Steenbock
nudged Lyons’s feet with his own foot.
After the officers called his name several more times, Lyons said that he wanted
to be left alone. Steenbock said that Lyons’s family was worried about him. Lyons
responded that he had a gun and would shoot the officers. Lyons then got out of the
tent and asked the officers if they wanted to fight. He told the officers to grab their
guns, said that he was “lethal,” and ran away.
Steenbock and Dilge trailed after Lyons, who then turned around and assumed
what he described as a “boxer’s stance.” With fists raised, he told Steenbock he wanted
to fight. At that point, Officer Sam Meshnick arrived, and Lyons turned toward him
confrontationally. The three officers then charged toward Lyons, tackled him to the
ground, and restrained him so they could handcuff his hands behind his back. After
informing Lyons that he was under arrest for disorderly conduct, the officers put him in
a police car to transport him to the hospital.
Lyons later sued the three officers for excessive force in wakening and arresting
him. The district court granted the officers’ motion for summary judgment. The court
concluded, based on the video evidence, that no reasonable jury could find that the
officers used excessive force. The initial encounter, in which Steenbock tossed an empty
water bottle at Lyons and nudged his foot, was not excessive; and the arrest was
reasonably executed in response to Lyons’s aggression and threats.
Lyons argues on appeal that the district court improperly credited the officers’
version of the facts. But the court did not make a credibility determination; it relied—as
it was entitled to—on the video evidence that contradicted Lyons’s version of the facts.
See Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 944 (7th Cir. 2018). And based on that video

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-3300 Page 3
evidence, no rational jury could find that the officers used excessive force against him.
The excessive force inquiry is one of reasonableness: whether each use of force was
objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Turner v. City of Champaign, 979 F.3d
563, 567 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)). Here, during
the initial encounter when Steenbock tossed the water bottle at Lyons and nudged his
feet, neither action disturbed Lyons nor was disproportionate contact to waken him.
And during the arrest, the officers responded to Lyons’s threats when they subdued
him with force that under the circumstances was reasonable—grabbing him, forcing
him to the ground, and holding him down on his stomach to handcuff. See id. at 569
(officers acted reasonably in bringing continually resisting man to the ground, pinning
his shoulder, handcuffing him, and applying leg restraints).
Finally, Lyons has renewed his motion in this appeal for the recruitment of
counsel. Having reviewed the briefs in this case, we find that step to be unnecessary.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --