David Pershell v. Shawn Martin
430 F. App'x 410
6th Cir.2011Background
- Pershell, a Baroda, Michigan resident, reported a firearm incident and later learned police sought to arrest him on a misdemeanor warrant; officers served the warrant during their response to Pershell’s 911 call on February 5, 2007.
- Officers Martin and Jones entered Pershell’s living room, where Jones displayed a taser; Pershell exclaimed, and a state trooper response followed as two more troopers joined the room.
- Pershell alleges that a leg sweep knocked him to the floor, after which he was handcuffed and beaten three times, causing a pelvic fracture and loss of consciousness; a dashboard video shows part of the arrest.
- Pershell was transported to jail, later treated at a hospital, and required surgery about two years later for the pelvic injury.
- Pershell testified about the officers’ positions and actions at the scene; officers denied striking him or seeing others strike him, and disputed the sequence of events.
- The district court denied qualified immunity to several officers, and Pershell asserted state-law assault-and-battery and gross-negligence claims; the district court and the court of appeals addressed both federal §1983 and state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the force used was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment | Pershell contends force was excessive after neutralization on the ground. | Officers argue force was reasonable given the circumstances to effect the arrest. | Excessive force liability over disputed facts; not objectively reasonable as applied. |
| Whether individual officers can be held liable when plaintiff cannot specify which officer caused each act | Plaintiff provided location-based and sensory details enabling attribution of liability. | Liability requires specific actions by particular officers; general presence is insufficient. | Liability may be shared; genuine issues of material fact regarding each officer's active participation remain. |
| Whether the underlying right was clearly established | The right against excessive force after neutralization was clearly established. | The right as applied to these facts was not clearly established for each officer. | Right was clearly established; qualified immunity denied for involved officers. |
| Whether the district court properly denied qualified immunity on the federal claims | Plaintiff asserts officers violated a clearly established constitutional right. | Defendants contend no clearly established right or unreasonable application in this case. | Qualified immunity denial affirmed for Martin, Cook, Miazga, and Williams. |
| Whether Michigan state-law immunity bars the assault-and-battery claim | Actions were not in good faith; acts were malicious or not discretionary. | Good-faith defense should shield officers if actions were within scope and discretionary. | Genuine issues of material fact on malice/good faith; district court correctly denied immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court 1989) (objective-rereasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Binay v. Bettendorf, 601 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2010) (liability for §1983 excessive-force based on individual actions)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court 2001) (two-step framework for qualified-immunity analysis)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Supreme Court 2009) (reverses strict sequencing in qualified-immunity analysis)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (Supreme Court 1985) (collateral-order doctrine for appeal of qualified-immunity orders)
- Harrison v. Ash, 539 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2008) (jurisdictional limits on review of qualified-immunity rulings)
- Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (narrow interpretation of qualified-immunity review)
- Turner v. Scott, 119 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 1997) (duty-based liability framework for supervisory actions)
- Phelps v. Coy, 286 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2002) (post-neutralization use of force cases)
- Combs v. Wilkinson, 315 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2002) (identity of officers in excessive-force cases)
- Odom v. Wayne Cnty., 760 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. 2008) (Michigan good-faith immunity framework for law enforcement)