Derrick Thomas v. City of Eastpointe
16-2594
6th Cir.Oct 6, 2017Background
- After neighbors reported a street fight, Officers Mark Barr and Jeffery Menzer responded with dash-cams running; Derrick Thomas and Antoine Clements were arguing outside.
- Officers ordered Thomas and Clements to get on the ground; Thomas did not comply and began walking away while officers approached.
- Officer Barr, about ten feet from Thomas and unable to see Thomas’s hands, deployed a taser without a prior verbal warning; Thomas fell and was handcuffed and later treated for a fractured elbow.
- Thomas sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force for the tasing and for painful/possibly injurious handcuffing; Officer Barr asserted qualified immunity.
- The district court denied qualified immunity; the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether (1) Barr violated the Fourth Amendment and (2) whether the law was clearly established in May 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Thomas's Argument | Barr's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tasing a nonviolent suspect who ignored commands and walked away was excessive force | Tasing was excessive because Thomas was not actively resisting or threatening officers | Tasing was reasonable because Thomas ignored orders and walked away, and Barr could not see his hands | Barr entitled to qualified immunity — law not clearly established for this factual middle ground |
| Whether officer had to warn before deploying taser | Failure to warn made force excessive | No clearly established rule required a warning | No clearly established duty to warn in May 2013; supports qualified immunity |
| Whether handcuffing constituted excessive force (injury alleged) | Cuffs were applied to elbow/too tight, caused fracture and complaints were ignored | Disputes plaintiff’s factual account; argues facts insufficient | Court did not resolve on merits; interlocutory appeal lacks jurisdiction over fact disputes, so claim survives to trial |
| Scope of review on qualified immunity interlocutory appeal | Thomas: disputed facts should be construed in plaintiff’s favor where dash-cam ambiguous | Barr: appeals factual sufficiency to overturn denial | Sixth Circuit limited: reviews law de novo but cannot reweigh disputed facts; reversed only as to tasing claim on qualified immunity grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagans v. Franklin Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 695 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes active resistance where tasing is reasonable from compliance where it is excessive)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established law requires precedent placing question beyond debate)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness standard for use of force)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (when video is dispositive, court may adopt viewer’s perspective over plaintiff’s version)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (review limited to facts knowable to officer at the time)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step: constitutional violation and clearly established law)
- Eldridge v. City of Warren, [citation="533 F. App'x 529"] (6th Cir. 2013) (tasing a nonresisting, medically impaired driver found unreasonable)