Bletz v. Gribble
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10683
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- On May 3, 2005, Deputies Gribble and Denny executed a bench warrant at the Bletz home to arrest Zachary Bletz.
- The officers approached the back Breezeway at night, did not announce themselves, and Zachary cooperated once identified.
- Fred Bletz, the homeowner, was armed; Gribble shot Fred while he appeared to be lowering his weapon, killing him.
- Denny yelled 'Gun!' and helped detain Zachary and Mrs. Bletz; the shooting occurred within six to ten seconds of the encounter.
- Mrs. Bletz was handcuffed and detained in police custody for about three hours, though she was not arrested.
- The estate and Mrs. Bletz sued under §1983 and Michigan law for Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims and related state-law claims; district court denied some motions and granted others; on appeal the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gribble's use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment | Estate contends deadly force was unreasonable under Garner and related cases. | Gribble acted reasonably given perceived threat, qualified immunity applies. | Estate’s Fourth Amendment claim against Gribble survives qualified-immunity denial. |
| Whether Denny is liable for Gribble's use of excessive force | Denny contributed by failing to intervene or prevent excessive force. | Denny did not discharge or supervise; no liability for interceding or failing to intervene. | Denny entitled to qualified-immunity summary judgment; lacked time and duty to intervene. |
| Whether Mrs. Bletz's post-shooting detention violated the Fourth Amendment | Detention for ~1 hour beyond initial safety needs was unreasonable and unconstitutional. | Detention was necessary to secure the scene and ensure safety; within discretion. | Material issue of reasonable detentions; denial of summary judgment on detention claim affirmed (for later proceedings). |
| Whether the state-law gross-negligence claim survives immunity | Gross negligence premised on excessive-force; immunity may not bar suit. | Gross negligence should be dismissed as it is rooted in intentional torts; immunity applies. | District court erred; gross-negligence claim reversible and dismissed (state-law immunity applies). |
| Whether defendants are entitled to governmental immunity on intentional-tort claims | Assault and battery claims should proceed; immunity not absolute. | Ross test supports immunity since acts were within scope, in good faith, and discretionary. | Gribble and Denny entitled to governmental immunity for assault and battery; Kitti's related claims reinstated for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force subject to reasonableness requirement)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clearly established rights; objective reasonableness in qualified immunity)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity framework (now nonmandatory))
- Yates v. City of Cleveland, 941 F.2d 444 (6th Cir.1991) (unidentified entry leading to disputed shooting; jury question on reasonableness)
- Chappell v. City of Cleveland, 585 F.3d 901 (6th Cir.2009) (differences from Chappell; timing and split evidence affect qualified-immunity outcome)
- Livermore ex rel. Rohm v. Lubelan, 476 F.3d 397 (6th Cir.2007) (segmentation of events before excessive force in evaluating reasonableness)
- Dickerson v. McClellan, 101 F.3d 1151 (6th Cir.1996) (analyzing related Fourth Amendment claims separately; time-frame matters)
- Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich. 459 (2008) (Michigan Ross test for governmental immunity in intentional torts)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) ( Fourth Amendment detention duration and removal of restraints)
- McCloud v. Testa, 97 F.3d 1536 (6th Cir.1996) (fair warning in qualified-immunity analysis; general rules may apply)