Terry Greco v. Cnty. of Livingston
774 F.3d 1061
6th Cir.2014Background
- Greco was injured when Deputy Clayton's canine Diago bit her thigh during a search after a DWI call at a gas station.
- Greco sues Clayton and the Livingston County Sheriff’s Department, asserting Fourth Amendment excessive-force and related claims.
- Clayton contends he did not seize Greco and any dog attack was an unintentional byproduct of the search.
- The district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity, allowing a jury to resolve whether the detention by canine was unconstitutional.
- On appeal, Clayton challenges the denial and raises forfeiture concerns about new arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
- The court must view the facts in the light most favorable to Greco and decide whether a reasonable jury could find a seizure by detention with a dog.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did a reasonable jury find a seizure by detention with the dog? | Greco argues the dog attack was a detention by canine and thus an unconstitutional seizure. | Clayton argues the dog bite was an accident and not a seizure. | Yes; a reasonable jury could find a seizure by detention. |
| Was the argument about reasonable force forfeited on appeal? | Greco relies on the district court ruling; no forfeiture issue raised. | Clayton forfeited any new reasonableness argument for appeal. | Forfeiture applies; court declines to address new reasonableness arguments on appeal. |
| Does the forfeiture rule require remand or dismissal of the force reasonableness issue? | Greco seeks full resolution of qualified immunity against the force used. | No appellate consideration of new force arguments; remand possible for district court. | Remand appropriate for district court to consider if Diago’s attack was reasonable under Graham. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness of force under objective factors)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (seizures require reasonableness and intentionality)
- Brower v. Cnty. of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1989) (seizure requires intentional action)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (U.S. 2014) (view facts in plaintiff-favorable light; jury could find intentional seizure)
- Campbell v. City of Springboro, 700 F.3d 779 (6th Cir. 2012) (unreasonable detention by canine or delayed control possible)
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2008) (forfeiture of arguments on appeal)
- Martin v. City of Broadview Heights, 712 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2013) (jurisdictional limits on appellate review)