580 F. App'x 314
6th Cir.2014Background
- On Nov. 16, 2009, East Grand Rapids officers Parker and Davis responded to a 911 call that Matthew Bolick (mentally disturbed) was "freaking out" and had threatened his father.
- After an extended encounter, officers subdued Matthew in the kitchen, placed him face-down and handcuffed; accounts diverge on the degree of resistance after handcuffing.
- Plaintiffs’ witnesses (Matthew’s brothers) testified Matthew was barely able to move and did not actively resist once handcuffed; officers testified he continued to struggle intermittently.
- After Matthew was handcuffed on his stomach, Parker allegedly used a taser (drive-stun) and Davis allegedly applied pressure to Matthew’s back with knees/weight; Matthew soon became unresponsive and died (autopsy: excited delirium).
- The district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity for the post-handcuff tasing and back pressure and dismissed qualified immunity as a defense; the officers appealed the denial and the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-handcuff tasing constituted excessive force | Bolick: tasing a subdued, handcuffed, minimally mobile suspect was gratuitous and unreasonable | Officers: a reasonable officer would have perceived continued resistance and threat, justifying tasing | Denied qualified immunity on this claim — viewing facts in plaintiff's favor, a jury could find the tasing unreasonable |
| Whether applying weight/pressure to a handcuffed suspect’s back was excessive | Bolick: putting significant weight on a face-down, handcuffed suspect who had stopped resisting violates the Fourth Amendment | Officers: perceived ongoing resistance and need to control suspect; action reasonable under circumstances | Denied qualified immunity on this claim — a reasonable jury could find the pressure objectively unreasonable |
| Whether the constitutional right was clearly established in Nov. 2009 | Bolick: Sixth Circuit precedent made clear that applying substantial weight/force to subdued, prone, handcuffed suspects was unconstitutional | Officers: disputed whether every reasonable officer would have understood the suspect was subdued and nonresisting | Held: Right was clearly established — pre-2009 Sixth Circuit cases made similar post-subdual force unlawful |
| Whether qualified immunity as a defense could be dismissed after denying summary judgment | Bolick: having shown genuine factual disputes, immunity should be dismissed as a defense | Officers: reserved qualified immunity and sought to preserve it for trial | Held: Reversed dismissal — defendants may reassert qualified immunity at trial despite summary-judgment denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893 (6th Cir. 2004) (application of substantial pressure to a subdued, face-down, handcuffed suspect is excessive)
- Martin v. City of Broadview Heights, 712 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2013) (gratuitous force on minimally threatening, mentally unstable arrestee violated Fourth Amendment)
- Bultema v. Benzie Cnty., [citation="146 F. App'x 28"] (6th Cir. 2005) (use of force on already-subdued and handcuffed suspect unconstitutional)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step: constitutional violation and clearly established law)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity protects officers from unclear legal boundaries in force decisions)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity shields from trial and liability; immunity as shield and defense)