David Gottage v. Rood
533 F. App'x 546
6th Cir.2013Background
- Gottage fired a shotgun near his father’s house while intoxicated; police alerted to a potential barricade and response was by the Emergency Response Team in an armored vehicle.
- ERT attempted contact via loudspeakers and phone for hours with no success; neighbor advised Gottage was likely passed out and difficult to wake.
- CS tear-gas canisters were deployed into the house around 2:00 p.m.; Gottage exited onto the porch unarmed with hands raised.
- Defendants tackled Gottage from behind on the porch/driveway when he did not lie down as directed; his head was driven into concrete and facial injuries occurred.
- Medical records show a broken nose and multiple other injuries; Gottage later brought § 1983 excessive-force claims and a state-law assault and battery claim.
- Gottage pleaded no contest to resisting arrest in state court; the district court denied qualified immunity, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed on the no-contest plea issue; remaining arguments were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a no-contest plea forecloses a § 1983 excessive-force claim | Gottage’s excessive-force claim remains cognizable; Heck does not bar it | No-contest plea necessarily undermines the § 1983 claim | No; no-contest plea does not foreclose the excessive-force claim |
| Whether the district court’s denial of qualified immunity rested on genuine disputes of material fact | Record supports Gottage’s version; factual disputes preclude summary judgment | Disputed facts require credibility determinations; immunity issue remains purely legal | Jurisdiction limited to pure legal issue; other factual disputes preclude review on appeal |
| Whether the district court properly denied summary judgment on the state-law assault and battery claim | State-law claim requires evaluation of force used and its reasonableness | Same facts as § 1983 claim; resolution depends on factual record | Proper denial of summary judgment given disputed facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Schreiber v. Moe, 596 F.3d 323 (6th Cir.2010) ( Heck issue resolved to allow § 1983 claim; excessive force not necessarily barred by prior conviction)
- Swiecicki v. Delgado, 463 F.3d 489 (6th Cir.2006) (excessive-force claim may be cognizable even if related to a conviction)
- Rogers v. Detroit Police Dep’t, 595 F.Supp.2d 757 (E.D.Mich.2009) ( Seja—district court findings on excessive force not foreclosed by conviction)