Coble v. City of White House, Tenn.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2632
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Coble was stopped for DUI after driving onto his property; Carney sprayed him with chemical agent and performed a takedown, causing a broken right ankle.
- After handcuffing, dispute arises about what happened off-camera; Coble testified he was walked on his broken ankle, blood trailed, and he was dropped face-first.
- Carney testified that he helped Coble to a standing position and only realized the injury after several steps, then sat him down.
- Coble provided an audio recording from Carney’s microphone; no video exists for the post-handcuff events; Coble claims he screamed and was abused.
- Coble pled guilty to DUI and resisting arrest; district court granted summary judgment on excessive-force claims, citing Heck and, for post-handcuff events, Scott v. Harris.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained and that the audio recording did not blatantly contradict Coble’s testimony enough to grant summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether audio evidence alone negates factual disputes | Coble’s testimony is not blatantly contradicted by the audio. | Audio shows no screams or name-calling; supports district court. | Genuine fact issue; audio not conclusive. |
| Whether post-handcuff force constituted excessive force | Carney forced walking on a broken ankle and dropped him, injuring him. | No corroboration of such conduct; actions were reasonable under the circumstances. | Question of material fact remains; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether the correct standard for summary judgment was applied given conflicting testimony | Credibility conflicts must be resolved by a fact-finder, not dismissed via audio. | Scott allows reliance on record to negate plaintiff’s version where it is blatantly contradicted. | Scott not limited to videotapes; credibility disputes remain for trial. |
| Whether Carney is entitled to qualified immunity given the disputed facts | Right was violated; it was clearly established. | Court did not reach clearly established prong due to assessed right not proven. | Remanded; district court must address qualified immunity after resolving facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video or record disproves plaintiff's version; summary judgment upheld where record contradicts)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Miller v. Sanilac Cnty., 606 F.3d 240 (6th Cir. 2010) (applies objective reasonableness to police actions on the scene)
- McKenna v. Edgell, 617 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2010) (procedural approach to unresolved facts on summary judgment)
- Dunn v. Matatall, 549 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2008) (videotaped evidence can render force objectively reasonable)
- Marvin v. City of Taylor, 509 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (balance of evidence in evaluating excessive-force claims)
- Griffin v. Hardrick, 604 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 2010) (video evidence may be considered at summary-judgment stage)
- Shreve v. Jessamine Cnty. Fiscal Ct., 453 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2006) (credibility and objective evidence interplay at summary judgment)