Rafael Correa v. James Simone, Jr., 528 F. App'x 531

Correa sued Officer Simone for excessive force after a taser during an arrest; district court denied summary judgment on excessive force, assault and battery, and false arrest claims.
Simone appeals, arguing qualified immunity insulates him from those claims.
Dash-Cam video shows Correa kneeling with hands up while Simone approached with gun drawn; video had no audio.
Correa matched the suspect description of a man with a gun from Bounce Bar disturbance; Correa contests the factual sequence.
District court found genuine issues of material fact on compliance with verbal orders; eventually denied summary judgment on the three claims.
Court addresses jurisdiction, applies de novo review, and affirms denial of immunity for the three claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a constitutional violation for excessive force?	Correa asserts taser use violated Fourth Amendment rights.	Simone asserts qualified immunity; no clearly established right was violated.	No; a reasonable jury could find unreasonableness in taser use.
Was the right clearly established for taser use on a nonresisting suspect with a firearm?	Correa contends clearly established law forbids tasering nonresisting suspects who may be armed.	Simone argues no case clearly established this exact pattern prior to 2010.	No; district court ruling on clearly established right was supported by precedent up to May 2010.
Did qualified immunity bar the state-law assault and battery claim?	Correa argues immunity does not apply to reckless or malicious state actions.	Simone contends immunity shields actions within scope unless malicious/wanton conduct is shown.	Immunity disputes involve factual questions; district court properly denied summary judgment.
Was there probable cause for false-arrest claims (federal and state)?	Correa was not liable for false arrest absent probable cause.	Simone had probable cause based on spitting alleged at Bounce Bar.	No probable cause for assault arrest; at least factual questions remained on intoxication/obstruction.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (use-of-force standard; objective reasonableness)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified-immunity framework (optional sequencing))
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (permits addressing prong in any order; not strictly two-step)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (final-reviewable decision on qualified immunity; final decision doctrine)
Campbell v. City of Springboro, 700 F.3d 779 (6th Cir. 2012) (clarifies analysis framework for qualified immunity in excessive-force cases)
Thomas v. Plummer, 489 F. App’x 116 (6th Cir. 2012) (clear affirmation that unresisting suspect may be protected from taser use)
Kijowski v. City of Niles, 372 F. App’x 596 (6th Cir. 2010) (unresisting suspect tasered; clearly established right)
Landis v. Baker, 297 F. App’x 453 (6th Cir. 2008) (no longer a threat; taser use not justified)
Wysong v. City of Heath, 260 F. App’x 848 (6th Cir. 2008) (right to be free from excessive force when not resisting is clearly established)
Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (U.S. 2001) (arrests for minor offenses in presence of officer; probable cause thresholds)
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (limitations on warrantless arrests for minor offenses in presence)
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (probable cause standard for warrantless arrests)