Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-18-02169/USCOURTS-ca6-18-02169-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 19a0350n.06

Nos. 18-2169/2231

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL MICHALSKI,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TROOPER BENJAMIN SONSTROM (18-2231) 

and DETECTIVE CHRISTOPHER CATES (18-

2169),

Defendants-Appellants.

.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Michael Michalski suffered severe injuries to his left orbital bone 

and left cheek as Defendants Michigan State Trooper Benjamin Sonstrom and City of Taylor 

Police Officer Detective Christopher Cates arrested him for drug trafficking. Michalski brought 

this § 1983 claim, alleging that the officers used excessive force in violation of his Fourth 

Amendment rights. The district court denied Sonstrom’s and Cates’s requests for qualified 

immunity, reasoning that “questions of fact exist concerning the amount and type of force 

Sonstrom and Cates used and whether Michalski had surrendered, was surrendering, or was 

resisting arrest.” Sonstrom and Cates bring this interlocutory appeal. We affirm.

The right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use 

some degree of physical force or threat of force. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22-27 (1968). The 

force used must be “’objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting” 

 Case: 18-2169 Document: 31-2 Filed: 07/10/2019 Page: 1
Nos. 18-2169/2231, Michalski v. Sonstrom, et al. 

-2-

the officers. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). Important considerations include the 

severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate danger to the officers or others, and 

whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee. Id. at 396. 

Sonstrom. Sonstrom contends that his actions were reasonable under the circumstances 

because (1) the crime was severe––a major drug buy-bust of two pounds of marijuana, (2) 

Michalski actively fled the scene and attempted to evade the officers by hiding in a Target parking 

lot in his car, (3) the situation was tense and rapidly unfolding, (4) Michalski might be armed, (5) 

Michalski poked Sonstrom in the eye as the officers pulled him from the vehicle, and (6) the use 

of force stopped once Michalski was secured. Sonstrom claims that, under these circumstances, a 

reasonable officer could have inferred active resistance from the suspect, justifying force like knee 

strikes, open hand controls like brachial stuns, and use of the taser. 

Michalski tells a different tale, one which we must accept as true at this stage of the 

proceedings. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). He claims that the patrol car video 

shows that although both his hands were clearly up in the air and he offered no resistance, the 

officers pulled him from his vehicle, slammed him on the ground, began kicking and striking him

with closed fists, and tased him two times. And while not dispositive, Michalski’s injury is 

suggestive of excessive force.

The problem for Sonstrom is that “[Michalski]’s version of events is [not] so utterly 

discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could . . . believe[] him.” Scott, 550 U.S. at 380. 

The major piece of evidence in this case––the dashcam video––displays Sonstrom screaming “Get 

your f***ing hands out the window!” as the officers approach the vehicle with guns drawn. 

Michalski puts his hands up. Sonstrom pulls Michalski from the vehicle. At this point Sonstrom 

jerks back, as if he has been poked in the eye, although no poke is clear from the video. Next, 

 Case: 18-2169 Document: 31-2 Filed: 07/10/2019 Page: 2
Nos. 18-2169/2231, Michalski v. Sonstrom, et al. 

-3-

Sonstrom forces Michalski to the ground, and below the camera’s view. Sonstrom is seen making 

a kicking motion, administering several short blows with his left arm, and heard screaming, “give 

me your F***ing hands!” Michalski responds, “I got my hands right here!” Michalski is then 

tasered twice by Sonstrom, and a voice is heard saying “Take that baby!” All the parties then 

move out of the dashcam’s purview, but continued commotion can be heard. Because the video 

does not capture Michalski while he is on the ground after the initial takedown, but before the 

arrest is completed, it does not definitively establish (1) Michalski’s resistance or nonresistance, 

(2) what blows and kicks were administered and by whom, (3) where those blows landed, and 

(4) whether they were appropriate or inappropriate under the circumstances. 

In short, from the video alone, it is impossible to tell whether Michalski surrendered 

voluntarily without resistance, as he claims, and whether Sonstrom merely used one knee strike 

and open hand strikes to incapacitate Michalski and gain compliance. In other words, contrary to 

Sonstrom’s assertion, the video does not blatantly contradict Michalski’s version of events. See 

Scott, 550 U.S. at 380. Thus, the question of excessive force is quintessentially one for a jury to 

decide, and Sonstrom was properly denied qualified immunity. See, e.g., Oliver v. Greene, 613 F. 

App’x 455, 459 (6th Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of qualified immunity to defendant prison guard 

where the video did not blatantly contradict the plaintiff’s claim that he did not create a threat and 

that the defendant therefore “needlessly injured him by way of excessive force when he took him 

to the ground, choked him, and repeatedly punched him in the face”). 

Cates. Cates contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because (1) the only 

wrongdoing directly attributed to Cates in Plaintiffs’ complaint is the allegation that he 

“unnecessarily restrained and handcuffed [Michalski]”; (2) the arrest was lawful, thus some degree 

of force was not unconstitutional, see Terry, 392 U.S. at 22-27; (3) Cates testified that he did not 

 Case: 18-2169 Document: 31-2 Filed: 07/10/2019 Page: 3
Nos. 18-2169/2231, Michalski v. Sonstrom, et al. 

-4-

strike, hit, elbow, knee, or pull Michalski’s hair, and Plaintiff failed to credibly challenge that 

testimony, testifying that, aside from a uniformed Michigan State Police Trooper, he “didn’t see 

much but silhouettes”; (4) Sonstrom testified that he, and not Cates, struck Michalski on two 

occasions using a brachial stun; and (5) the video does not show Cates administer any punches, 

stuns, kicks, or strikes. 

It is true that liability under § 1983 must be assessed individually on the basis of each 

defendant’s own actions, Dorsey v. Barber, 517 F.3d 389, 399 n.4 (6th Cir. 2008), and must be 

established with admissible evidence, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) (supporting or opposing 

affidavits “must be made with personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in 

evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated”). 

However, “where a plaintiff who was unable to identify clearly which officers committed specific 

acts during the incident produces evidence that places an individual defendant in a small group of 

officers that committed allegedly unconstitutional acts within each other’s presence, the plaintiff’s 

claim against that defendant may survive summary judgment.” Fazica v. Jordan, –– F.3d ––, 2019 

WL 2417358 No. 18-1457, WL at * 6 (June 10, 2019). 

In his deposition, Michalski testified that there were “definitely a lot of hands on me, it 

wasn’t just one police officer,” and that he “almost 1,000 percent kn[e]w that all three cops were 

attacking me.” Cates does not dispute that he was present at the scene (he is clearly seen in the 

video). The video does not exonerate Cates because it does not show what Cates was doing while 

Michalski was on the ground. And Michalski said that more than one officer repeatedly struck 

him, up to the point that he was tasered, and he has a serious injury to back up his story. That 

creates a question of fact of whether Cates threw some of those punches or kicks and whether the 

force was excessive under the circumstances. Cates was also not entitled to qualified immunity. 

 Case: 18-2169 Document: 31-2 Filed: 07/10/2019 Page: 4
Nos. 18-2169/2231, Michalski v. Sonstrom, et al. 

-5-

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court denying qualified 

immunity to Defendants Sonstrom and Cates. 

 Case: 18-2169 Document: 31-2 Filed: 07/10/2019 Page: 5