Burgess v. Fischer, 890 F. Supp. 2d 845

Burgess alleges excessive force and multiple related claims arising from a jail takedown during booking after a traffic stop and arrest for DUI; a surveillance video recorded the incident but was erased five days later.
Officers Barrett and McKinney performed the takedown; other deputies and a nurse were present during intake at Greene County Jail.
Post-takeup, Burgess sustained facial injuries and later required hospitalization for orbital fractures; jail medical staff provided initial treatment and Burgess declined further care at the time.
Plaintiff asserts federal §1983 claims (excessive force, denial of health care, policy violations, failure to train/intervene) and numerous state-law claims (assault, battery, negligence, intentional infliction of distress, spoliation, conspiracy).
The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims, finding no constitutional violation or state-law liability under immunity and Monell principles, and dismissed the remaining claims.
The videotape destruction was policy-driven, not tailored to disrupt Burgess’s case, and the court notes the retention period was relatively short.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Barrett and McKinney violated Burgess's rights by excessive force	Burgess claims the takedown was malicious and sadistic.	Force was reasonable to restore discipline; no malice.	No excessive force; qualified immunity and summary judgment granted.
Whether defendants failed to intervene to prevent excessive force	Other officers could have intervened to stop the conduct.	No excessive force by those who could intervene; thus no failure to intervene.	Granted; no liability for failure to intervene.
Whether Burgess received adequate medical care and was denied health care	Nurse Jordan failed to provide or adequately pursue treatment for serious injuries.	No deliberate indifference; Burgess declined further care and was treated on-site.	Denied; no deliberate indifference; summary judgment granted.
Whether there were unconstitutional policies or a Monell basis for liability	County policies caused constitutional injury.	No unconstitutional policies or customs were shown.	Granted; Monell claim dismissed.
Whether Ohio immunity shields state actors from state-law claims (assault, battery, etc.)	Immunity does not apply for intentional torts or willful misconduct.	Immunity applies unless malice, bad faith, or wanton/wreckless conduct proven.	Granted; immunity applies; related state-law claims dismissed.

Aldini v. Johnson, 609 F.3d 858 (6th Cir. 2010) (Fourteenth Amendment standard for excessive force in detention context; use of force must be malicious or sadistic to be actionable)
Cox v. Treadway, 75 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 1996) (arrestee must be under control; 'no force against a prisoner who quietly submits')
Swiecicki v. Delgado, 463 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 2006) (two-step qualified immunity analysis; right must be clearly established)
Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 2008) (references preclusion/analysis of due process in detention settings)