Steven Scozzari v. Jeremy McGraw, 500 F. App'x 421

Scozzari, as personal representative of his deceased brother, sued two police officers under § 1983 for alleged illegal detention, unreasonable seizure, and excessive force during pre-shooting events.
District court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, concluding Scozzari was not seized and thus no Fourth Amendment violation.
Allegations describe Miedzianowski ordering Scozzari to drop a stick; Scozzari allegedly did not comply and reached toward his waistband, with disputed pepper spray and weapon claims.
McGraw joined and pounded on Scozzari’s cabin door, kicked the door, and Scozzari opened the door; the events preceding Scozzari’s shooting are the focus of the second complaint.
On appeal, the court reviews de novo the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, applying plausibility pleading standards and Fourth Amendment seizure requirements.
The court holds that the complaint fails to show submission to authority and thus does not establish a seizure, making the excessive force claim untenable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Scozzari seized under the Fourth Amendment?	Scozzari submitted to authority by moving toward his waistband and opening the door.	Scozzari did not submit to authority; he did not drop the stick and did not yield to police commands.	No seizure; no submission to show of authority established.
Does a seizure exist when officers surround a home and demand entry but the resident does not exit?	Sic and surrounding the home can constitute a seizure, even without exit.	Seizure requires actual submission; surrounding alone is not enough without submission.	No seizure here; surrounding did not compel submission or force Scozzari to exit.
If no seizure occurred, is the excessive force claim viable?	Pepper spray use constitutes excessive force during detention.	Without a seizure, excessive force claim is not cognizable.	Excessive force claim dismissed because no seizure occurred.

Savoie v. Martin, 673 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2012) (pleading standards for plausibility under 12(b)(6))
Traverse Bay Area Intermediate Sch. Dist. v. Mich. Dep’t of Educ, 615 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2010) (Twombly plausibility standard applicability)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
United States v. Jones, 673 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2012) (definition of seizure by show of authority)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (seizure requires submission to authority)
Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (seizure requires actual submission; no seizure without submission)
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (U.S. 1988) (reasonable person would feel not free to leave in certain circumstances)
Beauchamp v. Beauchamp, 659 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2011) (submission to authority under favored circumstances)
Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2002) (surrounded suspect in home and barricaded conditions can support seizure)
Saari v. United States, 272 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2001) (police positioning and exit rights relevant to seizure)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: plausibility)