Sabo v. City of Mentor
657 F.3d 332
6th Cir.2011Background
- Dian Sabo, as personal representative of Richard Sabo, sued the City of Mentor and Officer Scott Tkach for Fourth Amendment §1983 and state-law claims after Sabo was shot and killed outside the Sabo home.
- On Feb. 5, 2009, police established a perimeter around the home when Mr. Sabo, armed with a shotgun, exited the house and was shot by Tkach.
- There is a material dispute over whether Mr. Sabo pointed or aimed the gun at officers or others, and whether he posed an immediate threat when Tkach fired.
- The case was removed to federal court, and the district court granted summary judgment to the City on §1983 claims but denied it as to Tkach; it also denied immunity on the state-law claims.
- Tkach appealed the denial of qualified immunity and the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the state-law claims.
- The Sixth Circuit dismissed the §1983 portion for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction but affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the state-law immunity claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interlocutory jurisdiction over qualified immunity appeal | Sabo argues Tkach's appeal should proceed as a pure-legal review. | Tkach contends the appeal seeks a legal ruling on the facts as viewed by the plaintiff. | No pure legal issue; jurisdiction lacking; appeal dismissed. |
| Ohio statutory immunity from suit for state-law claims | Sabo contends issues of recklessness and probable cause defeat immunity. | Tkach argues immunity should apply if not reckless or outside scope. | Immunity from suit denied; summary judgment properly denied on state-law claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (interlocutory review of qualified-immunity decisions limited to pure legal issues)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (collateral-order review of qualified-immunity denials when raised)
- Berryman v. Rieger, 150 F.3d 561 (6th Cir.1998) (pure-legal review required for interlocutory appeals in qualified-immunity context)
- Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725 (6th Cir.2006) (clarifies when interlocutory review is appropriate in qualified-immunity cases)
- Hunter v. City of Columbus, 139 Ohio App.3d 962 (2000) (recklessness and use-of-force questions commonly for jury; Ohio standard)