954 F.3d 842
6th Cir.2020Background:
- Repossession agents attempted to take plaintiff Jiries Abu-Joudeh’s vehicle; an altercation prompted police to respond and Jiries was arrested.
- Two officers (Schneider and Sebring) arrived first; two additional male officers arrived later. Yasmeen Abu-Joudeh identified a “third officer” who stayed near her and assisted with the repossession agents.
- Yasmeen testified the third officer grabbed a metal bar and tried to pry open the electric garage door; when that failed the trio went to a side door, which was opened by someone she did not see; repossession agent Leaveck testified a police officer—not a tow agent—let them into the garage.
- A police report referenced Chief Scott Sheets arriving and being asked to watch Yasmeen, suggesting Sheets may be the third officer; Yasmeen later submitted an unsworn declaration (based on a photo) identifying Sheets, but it was invalidated below.
- The magistrate judge recommended denying Sheets summary judgment, but the district court granted summary judgment for Sheets, holding the plaintiff failed to identify which officer opened the garage.
- On appeal Abu-Joudeh sought judicial notice of additional documents (not presented below); the Sixth Circuit denied the motion to supplement but concluded the existing record created a genuine factual dispute as to whether Sheets opened the garage and reversed summary judgment.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court may take judicial notice / supplement the record with documents not submitted to the district court | Requests judicial notice of police-report pages and deposition pages to show Sheets’s presence/role | Improper attempt to introduce new evidence on appeal; documents were not in the district-court record | Denied — Court refused to supplement record or take judicial notice for the truth of disputed facts |
| Whether Abu-Joudeh created a genuine dispute that Sheets personally opened the garage (to survive summary judgment under §1983) | Police report placing Sheets at scene, Yasmeen’s testimony describing the third officer prying with a metal bar, and Leaveck’s statement that a police officer opened the garage allow a reasonable inference Sheets was the officer who entered | Yasmeen could not see which of the three (officer or tow agents) opened the side door; Sheets submitted an affidavit denying involvement and argued plaintiff relied on speculation | Reversed district court: viewing evidence and inferences in plaintiff’s favor, a reasonable juror could find Sheets was the officer who opened the garage, so summary judgment was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Binay v. Bettendorf, 601 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2010) (evidence placing a defendant in a small group of officers who performed the act can support a jury inference of personal involvement)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact and drawing inferences at summary judgment)
- Fazica v. Jordan, 926 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2019) (survival of claims where plaintiff’s evidence places a defendant among a small group of officers who committed alleged acts)
- Greer v. City of Highland Park, 884 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 2018) (courts reluctant to dismiss claims when officers’ actions make identification difficult)