Joshua Clay v. Michael Emmi
2015 FED App. 0184P
6th Cir.2015Background
- Joshua Clay, diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, told a caseworker he had a present plan to commit suicide; police and paramedics responded and Clay voluntarily rode in an ambulance to the hospital to "talk to somebody."
- At the ER Clay was asked to change into a hospital gown; after he did not put the gown on, hospital staff and officers physically took him to the floor and restrained him.
- Clay testified he was handcuffed while face down and then was tasered in the back by Officer Michael Emmi; others on scene testified differently (some said Clay resisted and was tasered after warning).
- Emmi moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and arguing the Fourteenth Amendment (not the Fourth) governed use-of-force claims here; the district court applied the Fourth Amendment’s seizure standard and denied qualified immunity because material fact disputes existed.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit considered (1) whether the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment governs and (2) whether genuine disputes of material fact preclude qualified immunity; the court affirmed the district court and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which amendment governs excessive-force claim (Fourth vs Fourteenth)? | Fourth Amendment applies because force occurred during a seizure at the hospital; seizure arose from the initial response to suicidal statements. | Emmi argued Fourteenth Amendment should apply (use-of-force on a person in custody/commitment). | Fourth Amendment applies here; after Kingsley the governing standard is the same objective test regardless, so result is unchanged. |
| Was Emmi entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment? | Clay argues disputed facts (whether he was handcuffed before taser, and whether he was resisting) preclude immunity and must be resolved by a jury. | Emmi argues he used reasonable force against an actively resisting, physically imposing, suicidal person and that Clay’s account is discredited by other witnesses and his mental/ drug history. | Denied: genuine disputes of material fact exist about resistance and whether Clay was handcuffed before taser, so qualified immunity is inappropriate at summary judgment. |
| May appellate court resolve credibility disputes by reversing denial of qualified immunity? | Clay: credibility is for the jury; district court properly found a genuine dispute. | Emmi: asks court to credit witnesses and treat Clay’s account as incredible (invoking Scott exception). | Court refused to apply Scott exception; Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to resolve factual credibility — must leave for jury. |
| Was plaintiff’s account “so utterly discredited” to remove factual dispute? | Clay: his testimony is consistent and not rendered a "visible fiction." | Emmi: other witness statements and plaintiff’s impairments discredit his version. | Held: record does not utterly discredit Clay; conflicting accounts create a triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015) (pretrial detainee excessive-force standard is an objective one, aligning Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment tests)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use-of-force claims judged by objective reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (plaintiff’s version may be disregarded when video evidence so completely discredits it that no reasonable jury could believe it)
- Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes Fourth vs Fourteenth Amendment analysis in mental-health custody contexts)
- Ziegler v. Aukerman, 512 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2008) (Fourth Amendment governs seizures for mental-health evaluations)