Rush v. City of Mansfield
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13689
| N.D. Ohio | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations from a raid conducted by ASORT and multiple municipalities.
- The Raid involved ASORT deployment to execute a nighttime search warrant at the Rush/Hedrick home in Richland County, resulting in Gilbert Rush’s death during the entry.
- ASORT is an unincorporated association formed by a private entity (RCCPA) and funded by home departments; its commander and team leaders controlled the briefing and deployment.
- District court granted in part and denied in part various summary-judgment motions; the court held ASORT is sui juris as an unincorporated association and addressed liability theories (ratification, final policymaker, knock-and-announce).
- Key factual issues concern whether knock-and-announce was properly executed, whether the raid plan was reasonable, and whether municipal defendants ratified or were final policymakers for the challenged actions.
- The court ultimately denied some municipal-defendant summary judgments and denied in part others, while granting others, and held certain individual-defendant immunities applicable at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ASORT is subject to suit as an unincorporated association | ASORT is not a government unit and should be suable as an unincorporated association. | ASORT is a government unit or immune entity | ASORT liable as an unincorporated association; not a government unit. |
| Whether the City of Mansfield ratified the violation via investigation | Faith's investigation was inadequate, amounting to ratification of Bosko's actions. | Faith's investigation was adequate; no ratification. | Ratification shown; Mansfield denied summary judgment on ratification claim. |
| Whether Bosko was a final policymaker for ASORT briefing | Bosko had final, unreviewable discretion to brief ASORT, making Mansfield liable. | No final policymaker role; standard supervisor liability applies. | A reasonable jury could find Bosko a final policymaker; Mansfield denial of summary judgment on this basis. |
| Whether the knock-and-announce requirements were violated | ASORT/Mansfield failed to knock-and-announce properly; grenade-and-announce is not adequate. | Knock-and-announce satisfied by group announcement; grenade acceptable in context. | Knock-and-announce violated; jury could find causation for Fourth Amendment violation; ASORT liability remains. |
| Whether the raid plan’s execution constituted unreasonable seizure or excessive force | The raid plan itself was unreasonable and militarized the seizure, causing harm. | No officer used excessive force; plan reasonable under totality of circumstances. | Jurors could find unreasonable execution; liability may attach to plan origins; partial denial of some defendants' summary judgment requests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-prong qualified-immunity framework)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (modifies Saucier by allowing first-prong skipping)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity doctrine)
- Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability for policy/custom)
- Hudson v. City of New York, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (knock-and-announce and unforeseen violence risk)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness standard for use of force)