Ross 418024 v. Miller
2:22-cv-00094
W.D. Mich.May 12, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Shawn Demetris Bragg Ross, a Michigan state prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force by Sgt. Miller and others during an incident at Chippewa Correctional Facility on March 8, 2021.
- Ross claimed Miller tased him without provocation in retaliation for grievance activity, allegedly violating his Eighth Amendment rights.
- The court previously dismissed Ross’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims but allowed the First Amendment retaliation, Eighth Amendment excessive force, and state law claims to proceed against Miller.
- Miller moved for summary judgment on the remaining federal and state claims, arguing the use of force was justified and supported by video evidence.
- The court found the video evidence contradicted Ross’s account, showing that Miller’s tasing of Ross was unintentional and incidental to an attempt to break up a fight between other inmates.
- The magistrate recommended granting summary judgment for Miller, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and dismissing the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive Force (Eighth Amendment) | Miller tased Ross maliciously and without penological justification | Force was necessary to stop a fight; tasing Ross was accidental | No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment for Miller |
| Qualified Immunity | Not clearly asserted | Miller did not violate any clearly established right | Miller is entitled to qualified immunity |
| Sovereign Immunity (Official Capacity) | Not clearly asserted | Miller is immune as a state employee | Claims for monetary damages barred by sovereign immunity |
| Supplemental Jurisdiction (State Law) | State-law claims should remain | Decline supplemental jurisdiction given federal claims are dismissed | Court should dismiss state law claims without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (describes the Eighth Amendment limitations against barbarous punishments)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (sets standard for Eighth Amendment excessive force claims: must assess subjective and objective components)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (requires showing both a sufficiently serious harm and culpable state of mind for Eighth Amendment claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (establishes the standard for summary judgment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (if video evidence blatantly contradicts party’s version, courts can rely on video)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (sets qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (establishes standard for excessive force claims under federal law)
- White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73 (2017) (qualified immunity requires clearly established law)
- Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464 (1985) (official capacity suits equate to suits against the state)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (states and their officials immune under Eleventh Amendment)