Bessie Jones v. City of Cincinnati
507 F. App'x 463
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Survivors and Jones's estate sued six Cincinnati police officers under §1983 and state tort law for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and related claims after Jones's death following a struggle.
- District court denied both qualified and state immunity, leaving four claims pending: excessive force (baton) before handcuffing, excessive force (refusal to remove handcuffs), failure to provide medical care, and Ohio wrongful death claim.
- Video from in-car camera showed baton strikes and jabs by Pike and Osterman, Jones resisting attention, and later attempts to handcuff, pepper-spray, and roll Jones; firefighters arrived late to render aid.
- Coroner attributed death to abnormal cardiac rhythms from a violent struggle and positional asphyxia.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit adopted the district court’s facts (since video did not blatantly contradict them) and held the officers were not objectively unreasonable.
- Court applied qualified-immunity analysis: two-step test (violation of right, then clearly established) per Pearson v. Callahan and Saucier v. Katz framework, with actions examined under the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force: baton strikes were objectively reasonable | Jones resisted; strikes were excessive and targeted non-critical areas. | Jones initiated the struggle; officers acted to protect themselves under evolving circumstances. | Not objectively unreasonable; strikes were reasonable under circumstances. |
| Refusal to remove handcuffs in light of medical need | Firefighter request compelled removal to aid medical treatment. | Officers had time to assess; removal unnecessary and CPR could proceed with restraints. | Not objectively unreasonable; removal not required given circumstances and CPR possibility. |
| Failure to provide medical care / deliberate indifference | Delay in rolling and medical attention showed indifference to serious medical need. | Officers responded promptly once rolled; not deliberate indifference. | Not deliberately indifferent; actions showed timely concern and aid. |
| Ohio statutory immunity under § 2744.03(A)(6) | Immune shield not applicable due to alleged recklessness and disregard for safety. | Statutory immunity applies where conduct is objectively reasonable; here it was. | Affirmed immunity; state statutory immunity applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness, careful consideration of split-second judgments)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (practical two-step approach to qualified immunity; not required to proceed sequentially)
- Solomon v. Auburn Hills Police Dept., 389 F.3d 167 (6th Cir. 2004) (objective mistake exception for reasonable force)
- Estate of Owensby v. City of Cincinnati, 414 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2005) (contrast where officers failed to aid after use of force; emphasis on medical care duty)
- Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2002) (deliberate indifference standard and evaluation of medical need)
- O'Toole v. Denihan, 889 N.E.2d 505 (Ohio 2008) (recklessness standard under Ohio immunity analysis)