Flagg Ex Rel. J.B. v. City of Detroit
715 F.3d 165
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs are J.B., A.J., and I.B., the minor children of Tamara Greene, appealing after district court granted summary judgment for Kilpatrick and City on §1983 denial-of-access claims.
- Tamara Greene was shot dead on April 30, 2003; investigation led by Detroit PD Homicide; rumors linked her death to a Manoogian Mansion party.
- Evidence suggested attempts to suppress the Greene investigation: missing case notes, erased computer data, missing disks, and a videotape of the funeral.
- Investigation was shuffled to the Cold Case squad; key personnel were reassigned or demoted; witnesses and tips allegedly were hindered after transfers.
- Emails from Kilpatrick, Beatty, Carter, and Bully-Cummings for Aug 2002–Jun 2003 were deleted by the City despite a preservation order; district court issued a permissive adverse inference against the City.
- By September 2010 only Kilpatrick and City remained; discovery rulings excluded two Rule 404(b) evidence categories and the district court then granted summary judgment for both defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Backward-looking denial of access Elements | Greene’s obstruction impaired ability to recover; underlying claim viable | No substantial prejudice or viable underlying claim shown | Elements exist; but prejudice not shown here; summary judgment affirmed on access claim |
| Rule 404(b) admissibility of Brown/State-investigation evidence | Evidence intrinsic or admissible for motive | Evidence not intrinsic and lacks proper purpose | District court did not abuse its discretion; evidence excluded under Rule 404(b) |
| Spoliation sanction: permissive vs mandatory adverse inference | City’s destruction warrants mandatory adverse inference | Permissive inference appropriate given circumstances | District court did not abuse discretion; permissive inference affirmed |
| Summary judgment on conspiracy/denial of access | Evidence of obstruction and policy existed;全面 prejudice shown | No genuine dispute on material facts; no showing of prejudice | No triable issue; summary judgment for Kilpatrick and City affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (U.S. 2002) (backward-looking denial of access requires viable underlying claim and unavailable remedy)
- Swekel v. City of River Rouge, 119 F.3d 1259 (6th Cir. 1997) (elements of backward-looking denial of access including prejudice to underlying claim)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1996) (underlying nonfrivolous claim required for denial of access)
- Ziegler v. Aukerman, 512 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2008) (articulates §1983 framework for constitutional denial of access claims)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1986) (final policymaker liability for municipality)
- Beaven v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 622 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard for adverse-inference spoliation sanctions)
- Adkins v. Wolever, 692 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2012) (district court broad discretion in crafting spoliation sanctions)
- Gessa v. United States, 971 F.2d 1257 (6th Cir. 1992) (Rule 404(b) analysis steps (purpose, probative value, prejudice))