Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-15-04085/USCOURTS-ca6-15-04085-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0242n.06

Case No. 15-4085

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MATTHEW D. KELLY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CLINTON E. SINES; SHERIFF VERNON P. 

STANFORTH, Fayette County; BRYAN 

COOK,

Defendants-Appellees. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO 

BEFORE: GUY, BOGGS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Matthew Kelly was sleeping in the front passenger seat of his 

friend’s pickup truck when the police ordered the truck to pull over. After Kelly made a swiping 

motion at an officer’s head, another officer fired his taser at Kelly. One of the taser darts hit 

Kelly in his right eye, leaving him blind in that eye. Kelly sued the officers for excessive force 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and brought a state-law claim for battery against the officer who fired

the taser. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers on all claims, and for the 

reasons discussed below, we affirm.

I

On the morning of May 25, 2013, Matthew Kelly was riding in his friend Justin Runck’s 

pickup truck on I-71 in Ohio. The two had been drinking and smoking marijuana earlier, and 

 Case: 15-4085 Document: 32-2 Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 1
Case No. 15-4085

Kelly v. Sines

2

multiple witnesses reported that the truck was being driven erratically. Ohio State Trooper 

Sergeant Bryan Cook followed the car, and at 3:28 AM he turned on his squad car’s police 

lights, which activated the dash cam.

After Sergeant Cook activated his lights, Runck pulled over to the left of the interstate in 

the emergency lane by the median. Cook told Runck to get out of the truck and performed 

several field sobriety tests on Runck, which Runck failed. Cook then arrested Runck for 

operating a vehicle under the influence and placed Runck in his squad car. While all of this was 

happening, Kelly was asleep in the front passenger seat of Runck’s pickup truck.

As Sergeant Cook was dealing with Runck, Fayette County Deputy Sheriff Clinton Sines 

arrived on the scene to provide backup. After talking to Sines, Cook said: “If you can just watch 

him [Runck] for me, I’ll go up here and wake up the passenger.” Cook went back to the truck to 

wake up Kelly because the truck needed to be towed. Shining a flashlight into the car, Cook 

opened the driver-side door and said, “Hey, partner, hey.” When Kelly did not wake up, Cook 

began yelling “Hey!” and rubbing his middle knuckle on Kelly’s collarbone—a technique known 

as a sternal rub. After several seconds, Kelly woke up.

At this point, Kelly made a broad swiping motion with his hands at Sergeant Cook. The 

dash-cam video shows that Kelly raised both hands over his head and brought them down at 

Cook’s head, and Cook testified in his deposition that Kelly hit the brim of his hat. Cook reacted 

by recoiling and shouting, “Get up! Hey!”

Kelly then began forcefully attempting to remove his seatbelt—appearing to try to get 

closer to Sergeant Cook at one point—but he did not succeed; although Kelly pushed the 

shoulder belt over his head and behind his back, he never unbuckled the lap belt that was around 

his waist. While Kelly struggled with his seatbelt and flailed in his seat, Deputy Sines ran over 

 Case: 15-4085 Document: 32-2 Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 2
Case No. 15-4085

Kelly v. Sines

3

to the passenger side of the truck. Sines opened the door and reached in, appearing to grab 

Kelly, and yelled, “Show us your hands!” but Kelly continued to flail. Sines then grabbed Kelly 

by the hood of his sweatshirt and pulled him out of the truck, but the seatbelt prevented Sines 

from pulling him completely to the ground. As Sines was pulling Kelly out of the truck, he said,

“I’ll tase you!” Kelly flailed his arms at Sines as he was pulled out. Once he was out of the 

truck, he put his left hand on the ground and pushed himself onto his feet. At this point, Sines 

was standing in the middle of the interstate, potentially in the way of oncoming traffic.

When Kelly stood up on his feet, Deputy Sines fired his taser at him. Kelly fell into the 

passenger seat of the truck and sat there as Sines shouted “Get on the ground!” repeatedly and

warned, “I’ll do it again!” Kelly did not get on the ground and instead put his hands behind his 

head. While Sines was yelling at Kelly, Sergeant Cook walked over to the passenger side of the 

truck and joined Sines, yelling, “It’s the police. He said, ‘Get on the ground.’” While Kelly was 

sitting in the passenger seat of the truck, Sines activated his taser for a second time. Sines then 

tried to pull Kelly out of the truck and onto the ground again, at which point he realized that 

Kelly was still restrained by his seatbelt. Sines asked, “Has he got a seatbelt around him?” to 

which Cook replied, “Um, let me see . . . yeah.” Cook went back around to the driver’s side of 

the truck and reached in to unbuckle Kelly’s seatbelt. The officers handcuffed him shortly 

thereafter.

A few minutes later, Kelly told Sergeant Cook, “I got something sticking out of my 

eyelid.” Cook responded that a medic would be coming to take a look at it. Paramedics treated 

Kelly on the scene before he was transported to a hospital for further treatment. One of the taser 

darts had hit Kelly in his right eye, and as a result, Kelly is now blind in that eye. Kelly sued the 

officers in the Southern District of Ohio, bringing federal claims for excessive force under 

 Case: 15-4085 Document: 32-2 Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 3
Case No. 15-4085

Kelly v. Sines

4

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Cook and Sines and a state-law claim for battery against Sines. The 

district court granted summary judgment to the officers on all claims, and Kelly now appeals.

II

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the officers de novo. See

Gradisher v. City of Akron, 794 F.3d 574, 582 (6th Cir. 2015). Taking the facts “in the light 

depicted by the videotape,” all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. 

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380–81 (2007). If no rational trier of fact could find for the 

plaintiff, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Id. at 380.

III

Kelly argues that Sergeant Cook and Deputy Sines violated his Fourth Amendment right 

to be free from excessive force. The officers respond that they did not use excessive force and 

should be granted qualified immunity. Whether a defendant receives qualified immunity turns 

on two questions: did the defendant violate a constitutionally protected right, and if so, was the 

right clearly established at the time the act was committed? See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 

223, 232 (2009). These questions may be addressed in any order that will facilitate a fair and 

efficient disposition of the case. Id. at 242.

Kelly’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims turn on the “objective 

reasonableness” of the officers’ actions. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989). The test 

of reasonableness “is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.” Id. at 396. It 

requires “careful attention to the facts and circumstances,” including “the severity of the crime at 

issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and 

whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Ibid.

 Case: 15-4085 Document: 32-2 Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 4
Case No. 15-4085

Kelly v. Sines

5

This court’s decisions involving the use of a taser have devoted considerable attention to 

the third factor mentioned in Graham: whether the plaintiff was actively resisting arrest. Active 

resistance includes “physically struggling with, threatening, or disobeying officers.” Rudlaff v. 

Gillispie, 791 F.3d 638, 641 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Cockrell v. City of Cincinnati, 468 F. 

App’x 491, 495 (6th Cir. 2012)). “If a suspect actively resists arrest . . . officers do not violate 

the Fourth Amendment by using a taser to subdue him.” Hagans v. Franklin Cty. Sheriff’s 

Office, 695 F.3d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 2012); see also Rudlaff, 791 F.3d at 641–42; Williams v. 

Sandel, 433 F. App’x 353, 362–63 (6th Cir. 2011); Williams v. Ingham, 373 F. App’x 542, 548 

(6th Cir. 2010). On the other hand, when a plaintiff’s actions do “not follow the typical course 

of active resistance,” we are more inclined to deny qualified immunity. Eldridge v. City of 

Warren, 533 F. App’x 529, 535 (6th Cir. 2013); see also Kijowski v. City of Niles, 372 F. App’x 

595, 599–601 (6th Cir. 2010); Landis v. Baker, 297 F. App’x 453, 464 (6th Cir. 2008).

A plaintiff’s resistance to an officer’s commands is relevant even if the officers were not 

attempting to arrest him. In Caie v. West Bloomfield Township, the plaintiff argued that “the 

[officer’s] use of force was unreasonable because [the plaintiff] was not being arrested for a 

crime.” 485 F. App’x 92, 96 (6th Cir. 2012). Even so, we noted that the plaintiff was being 

“uncooperative by actively resisting the officers’ attempts to secure his arms behind his back,” 

and held that “[i]n light of this resistance,” the officer’s use of his taser was reasonable. Ibid.

We have also paid significant attention to the second factor mentioned in Graham: 

whether the plaintiff poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others. A person

who is physically violent toward an officer obviously poses a threat to the officer’s safety, but an 

officer can also be justified in using force against a person whose behavior places the officer at 

risk of being hit by traffic. In Williams v. Sandel, we held that, even though the plaintiff was 

 Case: 15-4085 Document: 32-2 Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 5
Case No. 15-4085

Kelly v. Sines

6

naked and unarmed, he “created a risk of serious harm by virtue of the location” in the 

emergency lane of the interstate by the median. 433 F. App’x at 361. “Obviously, the risk of 

serious bodily injury or death is great when encountering the high-speed traffic present on an 

interstate.” Ibid. That risk can be magnified when the plaintiff engages in “erratic” behavior, 

making it difficult for officers to predict what the plaintiff will do next. Ibid.; see also Caie, 

485 F. App’x at 96.

In evaluating these factors, and others, we must keep in mind that an officer’s actions 

should be evaluated “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 

the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Even if it turns out in hindsight that 

the plaintiff’s “subjective intent” was not to attack or resist the officer, we must view the 

officer’s actions “objectively, from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene.” Rudlaff, 

791 F.3d at 642. In Hightower v. City of Columbus, a plaintiff argued that he raised his hands

between himself and an officer not to attack the officer, but to protect himself from being 

attacked. No. 13-4437, slip op. at 2 (6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2014). We noted that the plaintiff’s actions, 

“whether intentional or not, could have led a reasonable officer to believe that [the plaintiff] was 

actively resisting arrest,” and held that the officer’s comrade acted reasonably when he used his 

taser on the plaintiff. Id. at 7 (emphasis added). Regardless of the plaintiff’s “subjective intent,” 

the crucial question was how “a reasonable officer in the heat of the moment” could have 

construed the plaintiff’s behavior. Ibid.

Turning to the case at hand, we begin with the third Graham factor. Kelly’s actions in 

the dash-cam video show that he actively resisted the instructions of Sergeant Cook and Deputy 

Sines. When Cook approached Kelly from the driver side of the truck, he was trying to wake up 

Kelly so the truck could be towed. Kelly responded with physical aggression by raising both of 

 Case: 15-4085 Document: 32-2 Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 6
Case No. 15-4085

Kelly v. Sines

7

his hands above his head and swiping down at Cook’s head. Kelly then threw off the shoulder 

belt of his seatbelt and began to thrash about in his seat. Sines responded by opening the 

passenger-side door and telling Kelly, “show us your hands,” but Kelly continued to thrash and 

flail in his seat. By attacking Cook and flailing when Sines instructed him to show his hands, 

Kelly acted in a manner that would have led a reasonable officer to conclude that he was actively 

resisting the officers.

The second Graham factor is also relevant to our analysis. At the beginning of the 

encounter, Sines, Kelly, and Cook were standing on the left side of the highway in the 

emergency lane by the median. After Sines removed Kelly from the truck, Sines was standing in 

the middle of a lane on the interstate, where he could have been hit by a car. Throughout the 

encounter, multiple vehicles passed by them, traveling at speeds typical of an interstate highway. 

Given the late hour, visibility was poor, and the only lighting came from the squad car and the 

officers’ flashlights. These dangerous conditions meant that Kelly’s erratic and unpredictable 

behavior could have resulted in Sines, Kelly, or Cook being hit by oncoming traffic. Based on 

Kelly’s aggressive and erratic behavior, the location of the incident, and the poor visibility, a 

reasonable officer could have believed that Kelly posed an immediate threat to the safety of 

Cook and Sines. 

Kelly argues that Sines acted unreasonably by tasing him because he was restrained by 

his seatbelt during the entire incident. But when Sines fired his taser, it was not at all clear that 

Kelly was still wearing his seatbelt. After Sines removed Kelly from the truck, Kelly

immediately sprang up to his feet on the pavement of the road outside of the truck, and a 

reasonable officer making a split-second judgment could have concluded, mistakenly, that 

 Case: 15-4085 Document: 32-2 Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 7
Case No. 15-4085

Kelly v. Sines

8

Kelly’s seatbelt was unfastened. It was only after Sines tried to pull Kelly to the ground for the 

second time that he appeared to realize that Kelly was still being restrained by his seatbelt.

Kelly also argues that when he stood up outside the truck, he was attempting to comply 

with Sines’s orders. However, even if we assume that Kelly had no intention of harming or 

resisting Sines, Sines had no idea what Kelly’s subjective intentions were at the time Kelly stood 

up. Perhaps Kelly stood up because he wanted to untangle his seatbelt, but perhaps he wanted to 

attack Sines. A reasonable officer acting in the heat of the moment would not have known what 

Kelly was going to do next, given his erratic behavior inside the truck. As such, it was not 

unreasonable for Sines to use a taser to subdue Kelly. See Rudlaff, 791 F.3d at 642 (“His 

purported subjective intent to comply with the officers’ requests fares no better, for we view his 

actions objectively, from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene.”).

Kelly’s final argument with respect to Sines is that Sines’s second firing of his taser was 

unjustified. See Hagan, 695 F.3d at 304 (noting that the Fourth Amendment prohibits an officer 

from subjecting a person to “gratuitous violence”). After Sines first used his taser on Kelly, he 

told Kelly three times to get on the ground, before saying, “I’ll do it again!” Kelly did not get on 

the ground, and at no point did Kelly give any indication that he was trying to—or was unable 

to—comply with Sines’s orders. Given Kelly’s noncompliance, and the fact that Sines was 

standing in the middle of a lane on the highway, a reasonable officer making a split-second 

decision could have thought that Kelly posed enough of a threat to warrant a second use of the 

taser. In light of the rapidly unfolding and potentially dangerous situation, Sines’s second firing 

of his taser was not unreasonable.

In hindsight, Deputy Sines’s actions seem excessive, given that Kelly was restrained by 

his seatbelt during the entire incident. But the Fourth Amendment does not require us to 

 Case: 15-4085 Document: 32-2 Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 8
Case No. 15-4085

Kelly v. Sines

9

scrutinize officers’ actions “with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. 

While Sines’s split-second judgment may have proved wrong, his mistake was one that a

reasonable officer could have made, given the “tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving” 

circumstances. Id. at 396–97. As such, his conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and 

he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Kelly’s claim against Cook is based on Cook’s failure to intervene in Sines’s use of force. 

In light of our conclusion that Sines acted reasonably, we also hold that Cook acted reasonably 

when he failed to intervene. Cook’s inaction did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and he is 

entitled to qualified immunity.

IV

Kelly appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Sines on his state-law 

battery claim. In Ohio, employees of a political subdivision are immune from liability, but this 

immunity does not cover acts or omissions made “with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a 

wanton or reckless manner.” Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03(A)(6)(b). Kelly’s arguments for 

applying § 2744.03(A)(6)(b) mirror his arguments for his excessive-force claim. For the same 

reasons that Sines’s actions were a reasonable response to an uncertain and dangerous situation, 

we hold that he did not act with malice, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner, and is 

entitled to statutory immunity from Kelly’s state-law battery claim.

V

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-4085 Document: 32-2 Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 9