Lucas Burgess v. Gene Fischer
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22279
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- On Jan. 23, 2009, Lucas Burgess was arrested for OVI, transported to Greene County Jail, and during booking was subjected to a takedown by deputies Barrett and McKinney that allegedly rendered him unconscious and later required surgery for facial and orbital fractures.
- Parties dispute key facts: Plaintiffs say Burgess was handcuffed, compliant (after a crude remark), and knocked out during a short takedown; Defendants say he was combative, resisted orders, and was not unconscious.
- Nurse Debbie Jordan examined Burgess after the incident, provided ibuprofen, completed a medical screening indicating no emergent injury, and plaintiffs later sought hospital care where CTs revealed fractures.
- The jail’s internal investigation (approved by Sheriff Fischer) found policy compliance; the booking video was erased pursuant to a five-day retention policy, and plaintiffs sued for spoliation among other claims.
- Plaintiffs brought §1983 claims (excessive force, failure to intervene, denial of medical care, Monell municipal liability) and state-law claims (negligence, assault/battery, IIED, loss of consortium, spoliation, civil conspiracy); the district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Sixth Circuit partially reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper constitutional standard for booking-room force (Fourth v. Fourteenth) | Fourth Amendment governs excessive force during booking; right was clearly established | Fourteenth "shocks the conscience" standard should apply to pretrial detainee in booking | Fourth Amendment applies; district court erred applying Fourteenth; Fourth was clearly established through booking process |
| Excessive force / qualified immunity (Barrett & McKinney) | Takedown of a handcuffed, surrounded, compliant detainee that caused fractures was objectively unreasonable and clearly established | Officers acted reasonably to subdue a noncompliant, combative detainee; entitled to qualified immunity | Genuine factual disputes (threat/active resistance) preclude summary judgment; reversed as to excessive force claim |
| Failure to intervene (Sortman & Jordan) | Presence during assault created duty to intervene or reduce harm | They lacked opportunity/means to perceive and stop a rapid takedown | Affirmed dismissal: plaintiffs failed to show sufficient time/opportunity to intervene |
| Deliberate indifference to medical needs (Jordan) | Jordan’s assessment and failure to diagnose/treat fractures shows deliberate indifference | Injuries were not obvious; Jordan provided assessment and ibuprofen; at most negligent | Affirmed dismissal: plaintiffs failed both objective (seriousness/exacerbation) and subjective (knowledge) prongs |
| Monell municipal liability (Board/Sheriff) | County had deficient training/supervision and a custom of tolerance; Sheriff ratified investigation | No pattern of prior similar misconduct; Sheriff’s approval was post hoc and not a policymaking single-act causing the injury | Affirmed dismissal: no evidence of pattern or policymaker-directed action as moving force |
| State-law claims (negligence, assault, battery, IIED, loss of consortium, spoliation, conspiracy) | Under plaintiffs’ facts, deputies acted recklessly/with malice; spoliation was willful; conspiracy viable | Statutory immunity for political subdivision employees barring mere negligence; destruction followed retention policy; intracorporate-conspiracy defense | Reversed in part: negligence, assault/battery, IIED, loss of consortium, and spoliation allowed to proceed; conspiracy vacated for further proceedings; medical negligence claim against Jordan and other claims affirmed dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Aldini v. Johnson, 609 F.3d 858 (6th Cir. 2010) (Fourth Amendment protection extends at least through booking)
- Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 2008) (choice of amendment depends on detainee status)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (two-step qualified immunity analysis precedent)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may choose order of qualified-immunity steps)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy/custom causation)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (due-process "shocks the conscience" standard)
- Schreiber v. Moe, 596 F.3d 323 (striking a secured, handcuffed suspect is objectively unreasonable)
- Phelps v. Coy, 286 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2002) (analysis of amendment applicability for detainees)
- Blackmore v. Kalamazoo Cnty., 390 F.3d 890 (objective/subjective prongs for medical need claims)