Dixon v. Roscommon County
896 F. Supp. 2d 670
E.D. Mich.2012Background
- Plaintiff Ronald Dixon was arrested by Deputies Quintana, Smith, and Kory, and Sergeant Tatrai after a van incident in Roscommon County, Michigan, on December 21, 2007.
- Dixon was pulled from a broken van, restrained face-down on the pavement with four deputies on him; Sergeant Tatrai choked Dixon for about six seconds while others pressed his back and face.
- Video and transcript show a taunting exchange by deputies during the takedown, including remarks suggesting continued confrontation.
- Dixon was transported to jail, charged with resisting and obstructing a police officer and driving with a suspended license; some charges were resolved via plea while others were dismissed.
- The initial district court order denied in part and granted in part defendants’ summary-judgment motion; the Sixth Circuit affirmed the § 1983 excessive-force determination but noted a disputed issue on good faith.
- Defendants filed a second summary-judgment motion arguing lack of opportunity to intervene; the court denied the motion, concluding triable issues remained as to whether the deputies could intercede.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deputies had a duty to intervene | Dixon; deputies observed Tatrai choke; had time to intercede. | Quintana, Smith, and Kory had no realistic opportunity to intervene. | No: triable issue; time to intervene could exist. |
| Whether the § 1983 excessive-force claim is failed as a matter of law | Force used was excessive and unreasonable given resistance and context. | Force was within bounds or contested; lack of imminent danger. | Not entitled to summary judgment; reasonable jury could find excessive force. |
| Whether the assault and battery claims survive summary judgment | Excessive force supports assault and battery claim. | Claims rely on the same reasoning as § 1983 claim and should fail. | Not entitled to summary judgment; jury could find liability for assault and battery. |
| Whether the Deputy-Defendants were barred by procedural rules from filing a second summary-judgment motion | Rule prohibits multiple motions without leave; claim not barred on merits. | Rule allows flexibility; second motion warranted by close issue. | Not entitled to relief; court denied second motion and proceeded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shreve v. Jessamine Cnty. Fiscal Ct., 453 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2006) (gratuitous violence not justified when no imminent danger)
- Ontha v. Rutherford Cnty., Tenn., 222 F. App’x 498 (6th Cir. 2007) (time to intervene depends on duration of force; seconds may be insufficient)
- Turner v. Scott, 119 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 1997) (acts of omission liable if opportunity and means to intervene)
- Smith v. Ross, 482 F.2d 33 (6th Cir. 1973) (liability for omission in protection against excessive force)
- Durham v. Nu’Man, 97 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 1996) (time period may be long enough for intervention by a watching nurse)