Blake Cretacci v. Joe Call, 988 F.3d 860

Plaintiff Blake Cretacci, a pretrial detainee at Coffee County Jail, experienced three separate incidents (Sept. 29, 2015; Oct. 11, 2015; Jan. 14, 2017) involving pepperballs, assaults by other inmates, and temporary deprivation of supplies.
Attorney Andrew Justice drafted a § 1983 complaint but was not admitted in the Eastern District; believing he could not file electronically before the limitations deadline, he gave the stamped, addressed complaint to Cretacci to deliver to jail staff on Sept. 29, 2016.
The district court received the complaint on Oct. 3, 2016; Justice later was admitted pro hac vice and entered an appearance on Nov. 22, 2016.
The complaint asserted (among other claims) an excessive-force claim for Sept. 29 (Counts II–III), a deliberate-indifference claim for Oct. 11 (Count I), and an excessive-force claim for Jan. 14, 2017 (Count IV).
Defendants moved for summary judgment: they argued Counts II–III were time-barred because the prison mailbox rule does not apply to represented prisoners, and that Counts I and IV lacked constitutional violations; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the prison mailbox rule for civil complaints applies only to prisoners proceeding pro se (not those represented by counsel) and finding no triable issues on the merits of Counts I and IV.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of the prison mailbox rule to a civil complaint filed by an incarcerated person	Cretacci: he was not represented at time of filing (counsel not admitted), or alternatively the rule should extend to represented prisoners	Defendants: mailbox rule limited to unrepresented prisoners; counsel prepared the complaint so Cretacci was represented	The mailbox rule for civil complaints applies only to prisoners proceeding pro se; Cretacci was represented, so filing was untimely
Whether officers were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk on Oct. 11, 2015	Cretacci: officers knew or should have known he faced a substantial risk after earlier riot and failed to protect him	Defendants: officers lacked subjective knowledge of an ongoing risk; the fight had ended and Cretacci did not report an assault when asked	No evidence officers subjectively perceived a serious risk; summary judgment for defendants affirmed
Whether Officer Faust used excessive force on Jan. 14, 2017	Cretacci: second deployment of pepperballs and lack of an opportunity to comply made the force unreasonable	Defendants: officer reasonably used nonlethal force to respond to a security threat and to address active resistance; injuries were minor	Under Kingsley objective-reasonableness test, force was permissible; summary judgment for defendants affirmed

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (established the prison mailbox rule for pro se prisoner notices of appeal)
Richard v. Ray, 290 F.3d 810 (6th Cir. 2002) (applied mailbox rule to pro se civil complaints)
Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2003) (attorney-prepared filings indicate prisoner was represented)
Cousin v. Lensing, 310 F.3d 843 (5th Cir. 2002) (declined to extend mailbox rule to represented prisoners)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (objective-reasonableness standard for pretrial detainee excessive-force claims)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness of risk)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (detention facility security interests factor into due-process review)