David Hopper v. Phil Plummer
887 F.3d 744
6th Cir.2018Background
- Robert Richardson, civil contemnor jailed for up to 30 days (purgeable by payment), suffered a seizure two days after booking; jailers restrained him face‑down with hands cuffed behind his back and held him prone for ~22 minutes.
- Medical staff were present and requested Richardson be handcuffed in front and placed on his back for assessment; officers kept him prone and applied compressive restraints during a prolonged struggle.
- Richardson repeatedly said he could not breathe; he stopped breathing and died; experts attributed death to restraint/position asphyxia or fatal arrhythmia caused by impaired breathing.
- Plaintiff (estate) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and deliberate indifference, and asserted Ohio wrongful‑death claims; district court denied defendants summary judgment on qualified‑ and statutory‑immunity grounds.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit addressed (1) whether the Fourteenth or Eighth Amendment governs excessive‑force claims for civil contemnors and (2) whether defendants were entitled to qualified or statutory immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Which amendment governs excessive‑force claim? | Richardson (civil contemnor) is not a convicted prisoner; Fourteenth Amendment applies. | Eighth Amendment applies because sanction imposed and detainee was "in custody." | Fourteenth Amendment governs civil contemnor excessive‑force claims. |
| 2. Was force clearly unlawful (qualified immunity for excessive force)? | Precedent (Champion, Lanman) clearly prohibited applying substantial pressure to a prone, bound person causing asphyxiating conditions. | No clearly established rule for civil contemnors in 2012; presence of medical staff justified restraint. | Denied qualified immunity; precedent gave fair warning that creating asphyxiating conditions on a restrained, subdued person was unlawful. |
| 3. Deliberate‑indifference qualified immunity (medical care) | Richardson had an obvious serious medical need and officers ignored repeated complaints they heard; jury question. | Officers claim they were facilitating medical treatment and relied on medical personnel; factual dispute defeats appeal. | Denied on interlocutory appeal—medical‑personnel defense is factbound; genuine issues preclude immunity resolution now. |
| 4. Statutory immunity and official‑capacity municipal claim | Plaintiff: state tort immunity exception for wanton/reckless conduct applies; municipal liability for training/custom remains. | Officers seek Ohio statutory immunity; Sheriff Plummer appeals denial of official‑capacity summary judgment. | Denied statutory immunity for officers (tied to same disputed facts as federal claims); appeal by Sheriff Plummer dismissed for lack of pendent appellate jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bagwell v. American, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) (distinguishes civil vs. criminal contempt; civil contempt may be coercive/remedial)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015) (Fourteenth Amendment excessive‑force standard for pretrial detainees is objective‑reasonableness)
- Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893 (6th Cir. 2004) (placing substantial weight on back of a bound, incapacitated person creating asphyxiating conditions is objectively unreasonable)
- Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 2008) (continued prone restraint using techniques posing substantial asphyxiation risk violates detainee rights)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive‑force claims analyzed under appropriate constitutional standard depending on custody/status)