657 F. App'x 508
6th Cir.2016Background
- On June 4, 2013, Troopers William Huey and Anthony Easlick (part of a drug task force) encountered Demetrice Presnall at an apartment complex after officers observed him walk away and tug at his waistband.
- Huey and Easlick pursued; Presnall ignored commands to stop, ran toward two ATF agents (wearing marked vests), pulled a Beretta 9mm from his waistband, extended his arm, and aimed the gun at the ATF agents.
- Huey and Easlick heard Presnall pull the trigger several times (the gun misfired) and saw Presnall with an additional magazine in his other hand moving toward the weapon.
- Fearing imminent deadly harm to the ATF agents, Huey and Easlick fired multiple rounds, killing Presnall; investigators and the county prosecutor found the troopers’ actions reasonable and filed no charges.
- Presnall’s mother sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force), pursued supervisory liability against Lt. Patrick Richard, and raised state-law claims (assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, gross negligence); district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force under Fourth Amendment | Troopers used unreasonable, deadly force in shooting Presnall | Presnall aimed a gun and pulled the trigger at officers; deadly force was objectively reasonable to stop imminent threat | Court: Troopers entitled to summary judgment; use of deadly force was reasonable and qualified immunity applies |
| Supervisory liability (Richard) | Supervisor failed to train/authorized unconstitutional conduct | No unconstitutional conduct by troopers to authorize or supervise | Court: No supervisory liability since troopers did not violate Fourth Amendment |
| State-law intentional torts (assault, battery, IIED) | Troopers committed intentional torts by killing Presnall | Michigan grants police qualified immunity for intentional torts when acting in scope, in good faith, and discretionarily; actions were reasonable | Court: Troopers immune under Michigan law; summary judgment for defendants |
| Gross negligence (state law) | Plaintiff recast intentional torts as gross negligence to avoid immunity | Michigan law rejects converting intentional-shooting claims into gross negligence where intentional tort immunity applies | Court: Gross negligence claim fails; cannot circumvent immunity by relabeling claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force seizure must be reasonable under Fourth Amendment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive-force claims judged by objective-reasonableness standard)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity framework for government officials)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (metaphysical doubt insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (flight in high-crime area can justify police pursuit)
- Bouggess v. Mattingly, 482 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 2007) (reasonableness of deadly force assessed by shooting and few moments preceding it)
- Chappell v. City of Cleveland, 585 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2009) (witnesses’ failure to hear commands does not negate officer testimony that commands were given)
- Bletz v. Gribble, 641 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2011) (Michigan immunity bars intentional-tort claims against police for shootings)
- Boyd v. Baeppler, 215 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2000) (deadly force reasonable where suspect aimed a gun at officers)