William Lucier v. City of Ecorse
601 F. App'x 372
6th Cir.2015Background
- On July 16, 2010 police responded to a 911 call from Michelle Lucier after her intoxicated husband, William Lucier, had damaged household items; four officers, including Barkman and McCaig, went to the home.
- Mrs. Lucier observed officers enter the basement where Lucier was playing drums; she testified Lucier did not resist, was tased, was kneeled on and handcuffed, and then Barkman slapped him while handcuffed.
- Officers claim a different story: Lucier threw drumsticks hitting officers, charged the officers, both officers deployed their tasers (probe mode), Lucier fell and was handcuffed, then later resisted in the patrol car and McCaig used a drive-stun taser.
- Lucier pleaded guilty to resisting arrest (City of Ecorse Ord. § 17-21); the factual basis for that plea was not specified and other charges were dismissed per plea deal.
- District court denied qualified-immunity summary judgment as to excessive-force claims for the basement tasings and the alleged slap while handcuffed, but granted summary judgment for the patrol-car tasing; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck bars Lucier from relying on his wife’s account | Lucier: Heck does not bar using Mrs. Lucier’s basement account because the guilty plea’s factual basis is unspecified and may have been based on later conduct in the patrol car | Defs: Mrs. Lucier’s account contradicts Lucier’s guilty plea for resisting arrest, so §1983 claims are barred by Heck | Court: Heck does not bar the claims because the plea’s factual basis is unknown and success on the basement claims would not necessarily invalidate the plea |
| Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for tasing in the basement | Lucier: He was non‑resistant and posed no threat; tasing was excessive force and violated clearly established rights | Defs: Use of taser was reasonable based on officer account of resistance and threat | Court: Viewed in plaintiff’s favor, genuine issue of material fact exists; denial of qualified immunity affirmed for basement tasings |
| Whether Barkman is entitled to qualified immunity for slapping Lucier while handcuffed | Lucier: Slap was gratuitous force against an incapacitated/handcuffed person and violated clearly established rights | Defs: Deny the slap or justify it as necessary to control Lucier | Court: Genuine factual dispute; slap could be unconstitutional—denial of qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether officers are entitled to summary judgment for patrol‑car tasing | Lucier: Facts unclear but challenges constitutionality of that taser use too | Defs: They previously represented Lucier was resisting in the car and obtained summary judgment on that claim | Court: District court had granted summary judgment for defendants on patrol-car tasing; appellate court enforces judicial estoppel against defendants’ attempt to recharacterize those facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§1983 claim that would necessarily invalidate a conviction is barred unless conviction reversed)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework; clearly established law and reasonableness analysis)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Bennett v. Krakowski, 671 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 2011) (use of taser on non‑resistant person is unreasonable absent compelling justification)
- Hayward v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 759 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2014) (Heck applies when §1983 claim contradicts an element of the conviction)
- Morrison v. Bd. of Trs. of Green Twp., 583 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2009) (gratuitous violence against incapacitated detainee can constitute excessive force)