Steven Ondo v. City of Cleveland, 795 F.3d 597

Background

Ondo and Simcox (both homosexual) were arrested at 7:00 AM on April 8, 2011, by a Cleveland SWAT/warrant team; they were in boxer shorts and claim officers refused to let them get pants before transport and repeatedly used anti‑homosexual slurs.
Plaintiffs allege excessive force (repeated strikes), equal‑protection violations (being kept in underwear because of sexual orientation), and IIED under Ohio law.
Plaintiffs’ amended complaint largely referred to wrongdoing by unnamed/officer‑group defendants; they later (in opposition to summary judgment) filed affidavits identifying specific officers but styled them as based on “personal knowledge and belief.”
The district court struck those affidavits as noncompliant with Rule 56(c)(4) and granted summary judgment for defendants because the remaining record (depositions, booking photos, no medical reports) failed to create genuine issues of material fact.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed: it held the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the affidavits and, on the remaining record, plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment, Equal Protection, failure‑to‑intervene, and IIED claims fail as a matter of law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
District court’s striking of affidavits that state “personal knowledge and belief”	Affidavits should be read in context as based on personal knowledge; court must segregate admissible portions rather than strike all	Affidavits fail Rule 56(c)(4) because they mix knowledge and belief and cannot be relied on to create factual disputes	District court acted within its discretion; if court cannot separate knowledge from belief it may strike the affidavit in toto; affirmed
Equal Protection claim (being kept in boxer shorts because they are gay)	Officers treated them differently because of sexual orientation; withholding pants constitutes invidious discrimination	Treatment was rationally related to officer safety and jail processing; no heightened scrutiny applies to sexual orientation	Rational‑basis review applies; keeping them in boxer shorts did not violate Equal Protection given legitimate safety rationale; claim fails
Excessive force and failure‑to‑intervene	Plaintiffs: multiple officers struck them (face/nose); other officers failed to stop it	Defendants: record lacks identification of responsible officers, no medical evidence, booking photos show no injury	Without the stricken affidavits plaintiffs cannot show which officers committed acts or sufficient evidence of injury; excessive‑force and failure‑to‑intervene claims fail
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) under Ohio law	Plaintiffs: defendants’ alleged physical abuse and slurs were extreme and outrageous	Defendants: affidavits identifying specific actors were struck; remaining record lacks proof of extreme, outrageous conduct or causation	With affidavits struck plaintiffs offered no probative evidence to meet Ohio IIED elements; summary judgment for Park and Rojas affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment — genuine issue standard)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness test for excessive force)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (sexual‑conduct liberty; rejected heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation)
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (right to marry; did not classify homosexuals as suspect/quasi‑suspect)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (objective standard in detention/excessive‑force context)
Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 576 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. — partly admissible affidavits; strike only inadmissible parts)
Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. — Fourth Amendment excessive force)
Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. — need particularized allegations identifying each defendant's conduct)
Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. — failure‑to‑intervene standard)