Louis Gradisher v. City of Akron, 794 F.3d 574

Gradisher, after heavy drinking, called 911 multiple times about a gun at a bar; officers investigated based on those calls and a separate bartender description.
Officers checked Gradisher’s residence at 402 Kline Ave for welfare due to erratic 911 calls and possible danger; Gradisher bolted, retreated, and was not cooperative.
Police forcibly entered the home after Gradisher locked the door and hid in the basement; Gradisher was found under a sheet in the basement.
Officer Craft tasered Gradisher multiple times when Gradisher allegedly pulled his arms away and did not comply with handcuffing commands.
Gradisher sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims against individual officers and the City of Akron for excessive force, unlawful entry, malicious prosecution, and related torts; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
This appeal challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment on several grounds; the panel affirms in part and reverses in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances	Gradisher argues entry violated clearly established rights	Officers relied on potential danger and 911 context	Qualified immunity; no clearly established violation; entry affirmed
Whether use of the taser to subdue Gradisher was excessive force	Gradisher resisted; taser used without adequate warning	Gradisher actively resisted; taser warranted	Material disputed facts; summary judgment reversed as to Craft
Whether Malicious Prosecution claim survives	Prosecution lacked probable cause	Hackathorn acted with probable cause	Affirmed in favor of Hackathorn; waived as to other officers
Whether municipal liability or policy/ custom support Gradisher’s claim	City liability via policy or custom	No predicate constitutional violation by officers	Reverse on Craft-related excessive-force ruling; remand on municipal liability; otherwise affirmed

Neague v. Cynkar, 258 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2001) (excessive force standard; clearly established right)
Hagans v. Franklin Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 695 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 2012) (qualified immunity for close-call force decisions)
Cockrell v. City of Cincinnati, 468 F. App’x 491 (6th Cir. 2012) (warning before deploying taser affects excessive-force analysis)
Johnson v. City of Memphis, 617 F.3d 864 (6th Cir. 2010) (emergency-aid exception and exigent circumstances)
al-Kidd, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (U.S. 2011) (clearly established rights not to be decided at high level of generality)
Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (emergency entries for aid may be justified without a warrant)
Dickerson v. McClellan, 101 F.3d 1151 (6th Cir. 1996) (policy under qualified immunity when facts are disputed)
Walters v. Stafford, 317 F. App’x 479 (6th Cir. 2009) (firearm evidence alone does not create exigency)