Tanya Martin v. City of Broadview Heights, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7094

Martin, a 19-year-old unarmed, mentally unstable individual, died minutes after being restrained and arrested by Broadview Heights Police Department officers Tieber, Semanco, and Zimmerman.
Estate sued the officers for excessive force under federal law and related state-law claims; City faced Monell claims for failure to train/supervise.
District court denied summary judgment to the three officers on §1983 and to the City on Monell claims; officers argued qualified immunity and Ohio state-law immunity.
This appeal challenges whether the officers’ conduct violated clearly established rights and whether immunity or Monell liability applies; the court affirms the district court.
The incident occurred outdoors; the officers used significant weight, strikes, and neck/chin restraints while Martin was face-down and handcuffed, leading to his death; the asphyxia policy and training issues were central to liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force.	Estate contends force was excessive, unprovoked, and unsafe.	Tieber, Semanco, and Zimmerman argue force was reasonable given the situation.	Yes; the force was objectively unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.
Whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.	Rights were clearly established; officers should have known their conduct was unlawful.	Not clearly established in 2007 that their conduct violated rights.	No; the right was clearly established by August 2007, so immunity does not apply.
Whether the City’s Monell liability could proceed given the qualified-immunity ruling.	City liable for failure to train/supervise; Monell claim should be reviewed.	Monell review dependent on underlying constitutional violation; issue separable.	Court lacks jurisdiction to review Monell claim in this interlocutory appeal.
Whether officers are entitled to state-law immunity.	State-law immunity should not shield from malpractice-like liability.	Chappell v. City of Cleveland would allow immunity if qualified immunity applied.	No; qualified immunity did not shield them, and state-law immunity denial was proper.

Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893 (6th Cir. 2004) (right to be free from gratuitous violence; clearly established rule on restraint tactics)
Griffith v. Coburn, 473 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2007) (neck restraint against unarmed, minimally threatening individual violated clearly established law)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness of force during an arrest)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity inquiry; right must be clearly established)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (consideration of official regulations/regulatory guidance in establishing rights)