Brown Ex Rel. Estate of Brown v. Chapman
814 F.3d 436
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- On Dec. 31, 2010, Cleveland officers stopped Rodney Brown; after a struggle officers tasered and subdued him, then placed him in a patrol car.
- Brown told officers he could not breathe after being handcuffed; officers moved him to a patrol car, he went limp, and EMS was not summoned until several minutes later; EMS found Brown pulseless and he died.
- Shirley Brown (mother) sued officers and the City alleging excessive force, wrongful death, lack of probable cause for the stop, and (in the facts) that officers were deliberately indifferent to Rodney’s medical needs; she later sought to amend to plead deliberate-indifference formally.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and challenging municipal liability; they also argued the deliberate-indifference claim was not properly pleaded.
- The district court permitted amendment to add deliberate-indifference, denied summary judgment to Rusnak, Merritt, Sattler, and the City on that claim, and granted summary judgment to Melendez; those parties appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the amendment ruling, held the deliberate-indifference standard applied (not a heightened malice standard), but dismissed most of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it raised factual disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff could amend complaint to assert deliberate-indifference | Brown argued deliberate indifference was pleaded in complaint facts and defendants had notice | Defendants said amendment was unfairly prejudicial because claim was not formally pled | Court: Leave to amend was proper under Rule 15(a); no abuse of discretion (defendants had notice and addressed claim in briefing) |
| Proper culpability standard for deliberate-indifference to medical needs | Brown: officers knew he had breathing trouble and delayed medical aid; traditional deliberate-indifference standard applies | Defendants: only very short period after he stopped breathing should be considered, so heightened malice standard applies | Court: Relevant period begins when officers could act after learning of breathing trouble; 15 minutes elapsed—traditional deliberate-indifference standard applies |
| Scope of appellate review on denial of qualified immunity | Brown urges review of legal issues; factual disputes should be viewed in plaintiff’s favor | Defendants challenge factual application and district court’s weighing of evidence | Court: Appellate jurisdiction limited to legal issues; appeals that merely dispute factfinding are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Municipal liability tied to officers’ conduct | Brown alleges City ratified officers by failing to investigate (ratification theory) | City: if officers are immune, City cannot be liable | Court: City appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; municipal liability not inextricably intertwined with qualified-immunity question and can be reviewed after final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. Cobra Power Corp., 560 F.3d 591 (6th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 15 rulings)
- Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557 (6th Cir.) (factors court must consider in amendment decisions)
- Morse v. McWhorter, 290 F.3d 795 (6th Cir.) (liberal amendment policy under Rule 15)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S.) (factors supporting denial of leave to amend)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S.) (denial of qualified immunity is collateral order reviewable on appeal)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (U.S.) (limitations on appellate review of denials of qualified immunity—factual disputes not reviewable)
- See v. City of Elyria, 502 F.3d 484 (6th Cir.) (jurisdictional limits on appeals of qualified-immunity denials)
- Quigley v. Tuong Vinh Thai, 707 F.3d 675 (6th Cir.) (standard of review for qualified-immunity summary-judgment denials)
- Estate of Owensby v. City of Cincinnati, 414 F.3d 596 (6th Cir.) (deliberate-indifference standard for pretrial detainees’ medical care)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S.) (deference when officers must make split-second judgments)
- Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492 (6th Cir.) (time available for deliberation determines culpability standard)
- Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 521 F.3d 555 (6th Cir.) (delay between custody and medical care relevant to deliberate-indifference analysis)
- Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351 (6th Cir.) (appellate treatment of facts in qualified-immunity appeals)
- Mattox v. City of Forest Park, 183 F.3d 515 (6th Cir.) (pendent appellate jurisdiction over municipal appeals limited to inextricably intertwined claims)
- Swint v. Chambers Cty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35 (U.S.) (scope of appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals)