Julian J. Miller v. Albert Gonzalez
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15085
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- On Oct. 24–25, 2003, Julian Miller fled from police after being seen drinking at a gas station near the scene of a nearby stabbing; Officer Gonzalez pursued and Officer Stange joined the chase.
- Miller jumped a chest‑high chain‑link fence into a small, enclosed, overgrown yard and lay face‑down, arms outstretched, at gunpoint when officers arrived.
- Gonzalez jumped the fence and landed on Miller, fracturing Miller’s left jaw; Miller alleges Gonzalez deliberately kneed his jaw after Miller was subdued.
- Miller sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive force by Gonzalez and failure to intervene by Stange; both officers moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for both officers, finding the injury accidental and that Stange had no realistic opportunity to intervene; Miller moved under Rule 60(b) with newly discovered evidence about the stabbing victim’s description.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Stange, vacated and remanded the grant for Gonzalez (finding disputed facts sufficient to let a jury decide intent and excessive force), and left the Rule 60(b) issue moot on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gonzalez used excessive force (intentional or accidental) when he landed on Miller and broke his jaw | Gonzalez deliberately kneed/dropped his weight on Miller’s jaw though Miller was subdued and visible at gunpoint | The injury was accidental (Gonzalez slipped/stumbled while entering the yard); any force was reasonable to assist in arrest | GONZALEZ: Genuine factual dispute exists over intent/accident; summary judgment vacated and remanded to let a jury decide |
| Whether Stange is liable for failing to intervene | Stange could/should have warned or prevented Gonzalez’s act | Stange had no realistic opportunity to intervene; the blow occurred instantly when Gonzalez landed | STANGE: Affirmed — no realistic opportunity to intervene; summary judgment for Stange affirmed |
| Whether Gonzalez is entitled to qualified immunity | Miller: right not to be subjected to significant force when passively resisting was clearly established | Gonzalez: force was accidental or reasonable under circumstances (suspected violent felon, flight) | QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: Not resolved in favor of Gonzalez — because disputed facts make jury determination necessary and law was clearly established that significant force on a subdued suspect is unlawful |
| Whether newly discovered statement (Rule 60(b)) describing suspect as a white male undermines probable cause/justification | Miller: victim’s statement plus absence of red‑car report undermine reasonableness of suspicion and would affect summary judgment | Defendants: evidence would not change summary judgment outcome | RULE 60(b): Court did not decide on the merits because Gonzalez’s summary judgment grant was vacated; remand makes the Rule 60(b) issue moot for now |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective‑reasonableness Fourth Amendment test for force)
- Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767 (avoiding speculation to defeat summary judgment)
- Sanchez v. City of Chicago, 700 F.3d 919 (duty/opportunity to intervene standard)
- Johnson v. Scott, 576 F.3d 658 (distinguishing when force applied before a suspect is known to be subdued)
- Abbott v. Sangamon County, 705 F.3d 706 (clearly established law on significant force against passively resisting suspects)