DeJuan Oliver v. Eric Buckberry
687 F. App'x 480
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- At ~2:00 a.m., Officer Eric Buckberry stopped DeJuan Oliver for weaving; the stop was audio/video recorded.
- Buckberry ordered Oliver out; Oliver asked why and refused. Buckberry announced an arrest and threatened pepper spray, then immediately pepper-sprayed Oliver, pulled him from the car, and threw him to the pavement.
- On the ground, Buckberry kneeled on Oliver’s neck/head, causing his head to strike the pavement; Buckberry yelled “Quit resisting!” while handcuffing and at one point struck Oliver’s side after cuffing.
- Oliver repeatedly said he was not resisting, said he could not breathe, and appeared to cooperate during handcuffing; any movements looked like attempts to relieve pressure.
- Oliver sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; district court denied cross-motions for summary judgment and denied Buckberry qualified immunity, finding genuine disputes of material fact.
- Buckberry appealed the denial of qualified immunity, arguing the recording shows no disputed facts and that he is entitled to qualified immunity; the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the dispute is factbound and not "blatantly contradicted by the record."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether force used was excessive under the Fourth Amendment | Oliver: knee to neck/head, continued pressure, and blows after cuffing were gratuitous and excessive | Buckberry: actions were reasonable; Oliver resisted and posed a threat, justifying force | Court: factual disputes about resistance and threat preclude resolving excessive-force claim now |
| Whether qualified immunity applies | Oliver: use of force against subdued/nonresisting person is clearly unconstitutional | Buckberry: video shows resistance, so force was reasonable and immunity should apply | Court: immunity defense depends on unresolved facts; cannot decide on appeal |
| Whether the district court’s factual findings are blatantly contradicted by the video | Oliver: video does not refute that he was subdued and cooperative | Buckberry: video proves he resisted, so district court erred | Held: video does not blatantly contradict the district court; reasonable juror could find Oliver stopped resisting |
| Appellate jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity | Oliver: denial raised fact issues, not appealable as final decision on law | Buckberry: asserts legal challenge based on video showing no dispute | Court: lacks jurisdiction because appeal is fact-based, not a legal determination eligible for immediate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (denial of qualified immunity is appealable only to the extent it turns on legal issues)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (appellate review permitted where video blatantly contradicts the nonmoving party’s account)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment excessive-force standard: objective reasonableness)
- Brown v. Lewis, 779 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2015) (use objective-reasonableness test for excessive force and consider totality of circumstances)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may choose the order of qualified-immunity inquiries)