Geraldine Burley v. Jeffery Gagacki, 834 F.3d 606

Background

On June 13, 2007, law‑enforcement officers in black clothing and partially masked executed a multi‑agency raid on or near plaintiffs’ home; plaintiffs allege excessive force and that officers concealed their identities ("Team 11").
Plaintiffs sued federal officers under Bivens/§ 1983 claims; discovery revealed federal defendants later claimed they did not participate in the raid and were executing a different warrant nearby.
On prior appeal this court reversed a directed verdict and criticized concealment of identities, suggesting (but not adopting) a Dubner‑style burden shift for false‑arrest claims; the case was remanded for a new trial.
At the second trial the jury found defendants did not participate in the raid; plaintiffs appealed several pretrial rulings from the remand proceedings.
Plaintiffs challenged the district court’s refusal to extend Dubner burden‑shifting to excessive‑force claims, refusal to disqualify the judge, several in limine rulings (e.g., disability benefits, prior lawsuits, prior complaints against Officer Browne), and raised other procedural claims.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court: refused to extend Dubner beyond unlawful‑arrest contexts, upheld denial of disqualification, rejected in limine error claims as either waived/harmless or barred by law‑of‑the‑case, and dismissed claims outside the notice of appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court should apply Dubner burden‑shifting to excessive‑force claims	Burley: equity requires shifting burden to defendants to prove nonparticipation because officers hid identities, making plaintiffs unable to prove which defendant acted	Defs: Dubner applies to probable‑cause false‑arrest framework only; plaintiffs must still prove individual involvement	Court: Refused to extend Dubner; burden remains on plaintiff to prove each defendant’s personal involvement
Whether judge should have been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 455	Burley: prior trial conduct and rulings showed bias/hostility warranting recusal	Defs: judge’s comments and rulings were proper trial management and within judicial norms	Court: No abuse of discretion; alleged conduct did not meet Liteky’s extreme bias standard
Admissibility of plaintiffs’ disability benefits and prior negligence suits	Burley: such evidence was prejudicially excluded at earlier stage and is relevant to damages/credibility	Defs: relevant to damages/credibility; law of the case permits prior rulings; any evidence at trial was harmless	Court: Issue abandoned or harmless; no reversible error because evidence did not affect outcome
Whether plaintiffs could relitigate validity of the search warrant and Browne’s prior complaints	Burley: want to contest warrant viability and prior discipline on remand	Defs: law‑of‑the‑case bars relitigation after plaintiffs chose not to raise on first appeal	Court: Law‑of‑the‑case bars relitigation; plaintiffs waived these issues

Key Cases Cited

Burley v. Gagacki, 729 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2013) (prior panel opinion reversing directed verdict and criticizing concealment of officer identities)
Dubner v. City & County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2001) (adopting limited burden‑shifting in false‑arrest cases where plaintiffs cannot identify arresting officers)
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (warrantless arrest is reasonable if supported by probable cause)
Thacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff must identify which defendant violated rights to succeed on false arrest claim)
Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (individual liability requires personal involvement in constitutional violation)
Binay v. Bettendorf, 601 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2010) (individual excessive‑force liability requires showing each defendant’s personal involvement)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings or opinions formed during proceedings rarely establish disqualifying bias)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (role of jury in assessing credibility and resolving disputed facts)