Shannon Roth v. Matthew Viviano
704 F. App'x 548
6th Cir.2017Background
- At ~3:00 AM Shannon Roth suffered a seizure at home; police and EMTs responded.
- Officer Viviano arrived before EMTs, asked about medications/drug use, and inspected pills on a dresser.
- Paramedics and family attempted to move Roth to a stretcher; she resisted (was seizing/"fighting") and fell off the stretcher multiple times.
- Viviano handcuffed one or both of Roth’s hands to the stretcher rail (disputed exactly how) and she remained handcuffed during the ambulance transport; straps were also used to secure her.
- Roth later claimed wrist ligament injury and brought § 1983 excessive-force and due-process claims plus state assault/battery claims; district court granted qualified immunity on the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Viviano, applying a medical-emergency reasonableness analysis and qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Viviano acted as law-enforcement or a medical responder (which affects qualified immunity) | Roth argued facts permit a jury to find Viviano acted in law-enforcement capacity (McKenna distinguishes roles) | Viviano argued he acted as a medical responder assessing meds and assisting EMTs, so medical-responder immunity applies | Court assumed dispute but did not decide; treated as a close question and proceeded to reasonableness analysis but affirmed qualified immunity outcome |
| Whether Roth was "seized" under the Fourth Amendment | Roth asserted handcuffing to stretcher was a seizure | Viviano argued she may have been unconscious or, in any event, conduct was part of medical response | District court found Roth was not necessarily unconscious; seizure claim analyzed under Fourth Amendment and Estate of Hill framework; court affirmed no excessive force as a matter of law |
| Whether force used was objectively reasonable (excessive-force claim) | Roth argued handcuffing (face-down, hands behind back per son) was excessive and not justified after straps were applied | Viviano argued some force was necessary to prevent self-harm during seizure and to secure straps; EMTs needed assistance; no evidence cuffs interfered with care | Under Estate of Hill factors, court concluded some force was necessary and that the record does not show cuffing was more than reasonably necessary; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the right to be free from medical-responder seizure was clearly established | Roth argued existing precedents (McKenna) left unclear whether such conduct violated clearly established rights | Viviano argued no clearly established right against negligent/inadvertent seizure by medical responders | Court held that, applying Estate of Hill, Viviano was entitled to qualified immunity because force was objectively reasonable; concurrence stressed that even under plaintiff-favorable facts Viviano plausibly acted as a medical responder and the right was not clearly established |
Key Cases Cited
- McKenna v. Edgell, 617 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2010) (distinguishes law-enforcement vs. medical-responder roles in seizure/search contexts)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective-reasonableness test for excessive force under Fourth Amendment)
- Estate of Hill v. Miracle, 853 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2017) (adopts a three-part medical-emergency reasonableness test for qualified immunity)
- Burchett v. Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937 (6th Cir. 2002) (deference to officer’s on-the-spot judgment in force decisions)
- Peete v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 486 F.3d 217 (6th Cir. 2007) (discusses seizure analysis for unconscious/noncommunicative persons)