Hawkins v. Detroit Public Schools
2:16-cv-10316
| E.D. Mich. | May 5, 2017Background
- On Feb. 15, 2013, Alexys Hawkins (a high-school student at a school event) was involved in confrontations with Detroit Public Schools police officers; she was arrested and charged with two counts under MCL 750.81d(1) for assaulting/resisting officers.
- After a bench trial in September 2013, Judge Dingell found Hawkins guilty on both counts and entered a juvenile disposition of "warn and dismiss" (adjudication of guilt remained).
- Hawkins sued the officers and Detroit Public Schools under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force and supervisory liability) and asserted related state-law tort claims.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (1) Heck v. Humphrey bars the excessive-force claim, (2) qualified immunity protects the officers, and (3) DPS is not liable.
- Magistrate Judge David R. Grand recommended denying defendants’ motion in full: Heck does not bar the § 1983 excessive-force claim; collateral estoppel and qualified immunity were rejected at summary-judgment; municipal arguments lacked development to carry the day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck bars Hawkins’ excessive-force §1983 claim | Success on excessive-force claim would not invalidate the resisting-arrest conviction | Heck bars the §1983 claim because it would necessarily call into question the state conviction | Denied: Heck does not bar the claim because absence of excessive force is not an element or an affirmative defense to MCL 750.81d(1) under Michigan law post-Moreno |
| Whether collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of force issues | Judge Dingell’s findings resolve force issues against Hawkins | The juvenile-court findings foreclose relitigation of the officers' use of force | Denied: trial judge’s findings were not sufficiently specific or essential to the judgment to preclude civil litigation on excessive force |
| Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity | Officers violated clearly established Fourth Amendment right against excessive force | Officers reasonably believed their conduct was lawful; collateral estoppel supports immunity | Denied: viewing Hawkins’ allegations in plaintiff’s favor, a reasonable juror could find a constitutional violation; right was clearly established; collateral estoppel did not supply immunity |
| Whether Detroit Public Schools is liable | DPS can be liable if officers committed constitutional violations or under state-law exceptions | DPS argued no municipal liability absent unconstitutional acts and asserted governmental immunity for torts | Denied at this stage: DPS’s arguments were undeveloped and rely on dismissal of officer claims which the court refused to grant |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (plaintiff cannot recover damages under §1983 for convictions unless conviction is invalidated)
- People v. Moreno, 491 Mich. 38 (Michigan recognizes common-law right to resist unlawful arrests; prosecution must show officers’ actions were lawful)
- People v. Ventura, 262 Mich. App. 370 (earlier Michigan Court of Appeals decision construing resisting statute without lawfulness requirement)
- Cummings v. City of Akron, 418 F.3d 676 (6th Cir.) (discusses Heck bar where excessive-force claim is inextricably intertwined with conviction under Ohio law)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive-force claims analyzed under objective-reasonableness standard under Fourth Amendment)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may exercise discretion in sequencing qualified-immunity prongs)