The Honor able Milton I . Shadur, United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * I llinois , sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0222n.06 F iled: April 24, 2008 No. 07-3485 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
OMRAN AB DUL -KHA L I Q, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. CI TY OF NEW AR K, E R I C C OOK, AR TH UR

MI NT ON , a nd KY L E G RO SS, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE S O U T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

Be fore : B OGGS, Chief Circuit J udg e; ROGERS, Circuit J udg e; SHADUR, District Judge. * ROGERS, Circuit J udg e. Plaintiff-Appe llant Omran Abdul-K haliq appea ls the district
c ourt ’s g ra

nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt i n f

a vo r o f t he de fe nd ants in t

his § 1 98 3 a c tio n a g a ins t th e City of Ne war k and thre e i n d i vidual police off icer s for sele ctive prose cution, unrea sonable seizure, malicious prosec ution, and excessive use of forc e. Khaliq’s claims arise out of an incide nt during which thre e off

icer s arr ested Kha liq outsi de of his home f or disorder ly

conduct a fter he y elled and
cu rs ed at the office rs and e ither opene d or ra ised his coat in a potentially threatening manner . Be cause Khaliq has prese nted no genuine issue of materia l fac t as to any

of his fede ral c laims, we aff irm the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt.No. 07-3485

Ab du l-Kha liq v . Ne war

k , e t al

.

- 2 - Abdul-Kha liq is an A frica n-Amer ican Muslim who lives with his white girlfr iend, Melinda Fa irburn. In Marc h 2003, upon returning home and discovering four arme d men demandingmoney from his gi rl fr i en d, Khaliq dialed 911. Ac cordingto Khaliq, he informe d the New ark Police Dispatch that “ [a] g uy

just had my

kid and g irlfriend he ld by g unpoint.” The dispatch interpre ted thi s a s a chi ld a

bd uc tio n r e po rt , a

nd se nt O ff ic e rs Ky le Gr os s, Ar

thu r M int on , a

nd Er ic Coo k to
re sp on d. Me anw hil e , K

ha liq dr ov e of f i n p ur su it o f t

he inv a de rs . Upon ar rivi n g at t he sce ne, Of

fice r Gross obse rved K

haliq’s neig hbor, Na omi W ilder, standing in the s tree t. He asked i f she had witnessed a child abduction. Ms. Wil der stated that she ha d no t, bu t that sh e ha d ov e rh e ard Ms. F a ir burn a sk Kh a liq if he wa

nte d to take so me thi ngwi th h im as he c hased the intruders. Ac cordingto Ms. W ilder, Kha liq replied: “No, beca use it does not have any bullets in it any

way .” Khaliq say s that he does not r emember Fa irburn saying any thing as he lef

t to p ur su e the inv a de rs . Offic ers Cook and G ross then questioned Fa irburn, who explained that four ar med males ha d enter ed the home, but that he r child had not be en abduc ted. Off icer Cook then inquired about a gun. Fa irburn initially

denied having a g un or off eringKhaliq a gun. Offic er G ross claims that Fa irburn then chang ed her story , stating that she had tried to ha nd Khaliq a toy

g un. Fa irburn ac knowledg es discussing he r son’s toy

g un with the office rs, but claims that she did not handle the gun until after Khaliq left.No. 07-3485

Ab du l-Kha liq v . Ne war

k , e t al

.

- 3 - After Khaliq lost track of the i nvader s, he came home, “fly ing in” to his drivewa

y and found Offic ers Cook and G ross in the front y ard. K hal i q admits that he was a ng ry and fr ustrated, approa ched the office rs, and a sked the off icer s why they wer e not “c hasing afte r the c ri m i n al s.” Kh a liq a dmi ts that w he n h e fi rs t st art e d ta lki ngto t he of fi c e rs , h e wa s “ki nd of lou d. ” Of fi c e r G ro ss claims that both office rs re peate dly advised Kha liq that they

neede d to pat him down, and that they instructed Kha liq to put hi s hands on his c ar. When a sked during his Febr uary 23, 2005, deposition whether he had be en instructed to put his ha nds on his c ar or to submit to a pat-down, K haliq denied
rec ollection: Q: Did Offic er Cook then a sk to pat y ou down? A: Ic an’ t r e c a ll h im a sk ingme that. Q: Did either of

the offic ers a sk y ou to put y our hands o n t h e ca r s o y ou could be patted down? A: No , I c an’ t r e c a ll that. Q: Now, y ou just can’t re call today b ec au s e y ou’re not sure if it happe ned, or you don’t believe that happene d? A: Ijust—I can’ t rec all them saying tur n around, put y our hands on the c ar . . .

. . . Q: Do either

of the off icer s order

y ou to put y our hands on the c ar? A: Ican’ t rec all. Ijust reca ll them just say ing w here ’s the g un. . . .

. . . Q: How’s your ang er le vel at this time? You said y ou wer e fr ustrated be fore when y ou wer e in the ca

r and ta lking on the cell phone and now y ou g et [home] . What’s g oin g thr ou g h y our m ind

a t th is p oin t? A: J ust basically

Iwas just, like Isaid, I was upset that the cop ha d called ba ck in the manne r in w h ic h h e w a s ta lk in g to me o n th e p h o n e . I h a d lo s t c o n ta c t w ith [the intruders]. T hen I g et back home and there ’s two cops asking me about a g un, y ouNo. 07-3485

Ab du l-Kha liq v . Ne war

k , e t al

.

- 4 - know, that I didn’t have. And every thing went—like I said, the time, it just s eeme d like ever y thing we nt so fast, it just—y ou’re asking me did they ask to pat me down, it just—the nex t thing I knew, as soon as Isaid no and a couple wor ds are g oing ba ck and for th, I ’m g etting spr ay ed with mace
. Q: So the office rs did not give y ou sever al, three , four dire ct order s to place your hands on the c ar to be patted down? A: Ic an’ t r e c a ll.
L ater , Khaliq g ained r ecollec tion in his J uly 22, 2006, aff idavit: “ I never ref

used to submit to a pat down sea rch, to plac e my

hands on a c ar, or

to spread my

leg s. Iam ce rtain t h at no police of fice r
e ith e r r e pe a te dly

a sk e d o r o rd e re d me to p ut my ha nd s o n th e c ar o r t o b e patte d do wn . . . . ” Kh a liq claims that he ne ver r efuse d to do any thing the of

fice rs re quested of him. At some point dur ing the course of events, all ag ree that Offic er Cook aske d Khaliq wher e his gun w as, at wh i ch point Khaliq bec ame a ng ry and admits to arguing w ith the office rs about whether or not he ha d a g un: “bef ore I know it, I ’m y elling ba ck and f orth, they ’re y ell i n g back at
me , w he re ’s the g un , w he re ’s th e g un .” Kh a liq a lso a dmi ts t o c ur sin g a t th e of fi c e rs , s ay ing“ thi s is fucking cra z y ” an d t hat he “ didn’t have a fuckingg un.” Af

ter de bating with the office rs about whether or not he wa s car

rying a g un, Khaliq re ache d for his jac ket. Khaliq claims that he ope ned his coat as a

non-threatening g esture to sh o w t h e o fficers that he w as not ca rry ing a g un. Offic er Gross, howe ver, c laims that Khaliq quickly stepped back a nd beg an to lift his jacket, which a ction the offic ers inter

prete d as an a g g ressive g esture. I n response , the offic ers spra y ed Kha liq with pepper sp ra y , s ho ve d h im t o th e g ro un d, and ha nd c uf fe d h im. Kh a liq

wa s arr e ste d fo r dis or de rl y c on du c t.No. 07-3485

Ab du l-Kha liq v . Ne war

k , e t al

.

- 5 - Offic er Minton did not arrive on the sce ne until af t er Kh al i q had bee n spray ed and w as on the g round.
F oll ow ingthe se e ve nts, Kh a liq fi le d s uit un de r 4 2 U .S. C. § 19 83 a g a ins t O ff ic e rs Gr os s, Cook, and Minton, and ag ainst the City of Newark. Khaliq brought an Equa l Protection selectivepr os e c uti on

c la im o n th e g ro un d th a t he wa s tr e a te d d if fe re ntl y tha n h is sim il arl y situate d w hit e g irlfriend; a

Four th Amendment unre asonable -seizure c laim on the g round that there was not pr ob a ble c a us e fo r h is a

rr e st; a ma lici ou s-p ros e c uti on

c la im und e r t

he F ourt h a nd F ourt e e nth Amendments; and a

rg uably a F ourth Amendment c laim for excessive use of for ce. Khaliq ar g ues that the City

of Ne war

k is liable beca

use the c o n s t i t u t i o n al violations he alleg es we re c aused by unconstitutional poli cies a nd customs of

the City ; namely , a fa ilure to train and supe rvise its office rs adequately , and a failure to discipline or investigate offic ers f ollowing pa st instances of discrimination. Khaliq also broug ht a number of st ate- law claims, seeking to take adva ntag e of the court’s suppleme ntal jurisdiction.
I n r e sp on se , th e de fe nd ants fi le d a mot ion fo r su mma

ry jud g me nt on a ll of

Kh a liq ’s c la ims
e xce pt t hat f or e xce ssi ve us e of fo rc e . Kh a liq fi le d a mot ion in op po sit ion , a dd iti on a lly no tin g his ob se rv a tio n th a t th e de fe nd ants ha d n ot mov e d for su mma ry jud g me nt on his e xce ssi ve -f or c e c la im. I n reply , the def

endants a rg ued that if Kha liq had intended to p l ead excessive forc e, summary judgme nt in their favor

was a ppropriate on that claim as well. Khaliq subsequently moved to strike this portion of t h e d ef

endants’ r eply , or, in the alter native, to file a

sur-re ply to oppose summary jud g me nt o n h is e xce ssi ve -f or c e c la im.No. 07-3485

Ab du l-Kha liq v . Ne war

k , e t al

.

- 6 - The district court denied Kha liq’s motion t o strike and g rante d the def endants’ motion for summary j u d gm en t
. The c ourt conc luded that Khaliq had f ailed ade quately

to plead a c laim for excessive use of f

orce , and alter

natively conclude d that Khaliq’s excessive- forc e cla im could not survive summary

judgme nt. The cour

t also g rante d the def

endants summary

judgme nt on K

haliq’s selec tive-prose cution claim, finding t h at Khaliq and F airburn w ere not simi larly situated and, alternatively , that Khaliq could not establish a discr iminatory purpose be cause the offic ers ha d qu e sti on e d b oth

Kh a liq and F a ir burn a bo ut the g un

and on ly fo c us e d o n K

ha liq a ft e r h e ha d b e c ome dif fi c ult
. The c ourt also gra

nted s ummary judgme nt on Khaliq’s unre asonable -seizure c laim, finding that, r e lyingso le ly on Kh a liq ’s a c c ount of wh a t ha pp e ne d, the of

fi c e rs ha d p ro ba

ble c a us e to a rr e st. The c ourt noted that Khaliq had admitt ed to y elling and cursing at the offic ers whe n they questioned him a bo ut the g un , an d to ope nin g his c oat to sh ow the of fi c e rs tha t he wa s n ot c arr

y inga fi re a rm . The c ourt rea soned that the off icer s had probable cause to a rre st K haliq for disorde rly

conduct ba sed
o n h i s d i s r e g ar d f

o r t h e l aw b e c a

u s e t h e y “ h a d a r e a s o n a

b l e b e l i e f t h a t P l a i n t i f

f w a s a c t i n g d i s o r d e r l y, which consists of recklessly causing inconvenienc e, annoy ance , or alarm to another by : (1) eng ag ing in fig hting, in thre ateningharm to per son s o r property , or in violent or turbulent beha vior.” The court a lso gr anted summary judgme nt on Khaliq’s malicious-prosec ution claim, based on its finding that the offic ers ha d probable cause to arre st. Finally , the district court g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of the City of Ne war k on the g round that Khal i q h ad failed to de monstrate that his alleg ed injuries we re c aused by anNo. 07-3485

Ab du l-Kha liq v . Ne war

k , e t al

.

We r e a c h n o c on c lus ion s r e g ard ingthe me ri ts o f K ha liq ’s state -l aw c la ims
. 1 - 7 - un c on sti tut ion a l Cit

y c us tom or po lic y . Th e c ourt c on c lud e d th a t K

ha liq ha d f a ile d to de mon str a te a cle ar pattern of unc onstitut ional activity in c iting appar ently isolated and re sponded-to instance s of discrimination by

individual police office rs, and rejec ted Khaliq’s arguments that the City failed to tr ain, supervise, investigate, and discipline its officer s adequately . The c ourt also conc luded that Khaliq had f

ailed to show that the off

icer s’ ac tions repre sent any City policy
. On appe al, Khaliq ar g ues that the district cour t did not correc tly

apply the standard for
su mma ry jud g me nt; that th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in ho ldi ngthat he ha d n ot ad e qu a te ly ple d a c la im for e x cessive use of for ce; that he has pre sented g enuine issues of material fa ct as to all of his feder al
c la ims and

tha t summa ry jud g me nt w a s im

pr op e r; and

that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d in de c lin ingto
e xer c ise su

pp le me nta l juri sd ic tio n o ve r h is r e ma ini ngstate -l aw c la ims
. Be cause we conclude that Khaliq has prese nted no g enuine issue of materia l fac t reg arding his feder al claims, we a ffirm the district co u rt ’s g rant of summar y judgme nt. The police ha d 1 probable cause to arre st Khaliq for disorde rl y co n d u ct
. Although K haliq claims that he wa s not hostile or uncooper ative towar d the offic ers, it is clea r fr om Khaliq’s deposition testimony that he was be ing a

rg umentative and unc ooperative inasmuch as he a dmits t o ang ry y elling a nd cursingat the of f ic e r s w h il e c ar

r y in go na p r o lo n g e d

d e b a te a b o u t w h e th e r

o r n o t h e h a d

a g u n . Moreove r, Kh aliq a dmi ts that he op e ne d h is c oat in a vig or ou s g e sture tow ard the po lic e of

fi c e rs . T he se circ umstances a

re suf ficient to “wa

rra nt a prudent man i n believing that the [ arr estee ] had committ edNo. 07-3485

Ab du l-Kha liq v . Ne war

k , e t al

.

- 8 - or wa s committi ng an off

ense.” Di am on d v . H

owd , 2 88 F .3 d 9 32 , 9 36 -3 7 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 2) ; se e als o Ohio Rev. Code § 2917.11 (“ No per son shall r eckle ssly cause inconvenienc e, annoyance , or ala rm to another by
. . . : ( 1) Eng ag ing in fig hting, in thre ateningharm to per sons or proper ty , or in violent or turbulent beha

vior.”). U nder O hio law, vulg ar la ng uag e ac companied by

ag g ressive be havior c an b e s u fficient to support a disorderly conduct c onviction based on “ turbulent behavior.” S ee Middletown v. Carpenter , N o. CA 20 06 -0 1- 00 4, 20 06 WL19 72 06 1, a t *3 (O hio Ct. Ap p. 20 06 ); see als o Th ac k

e r v . La wre nc e Cou nty , 182 F. App’ x 464, 469-70 (6th Cir. 2006) (c o n cl u d i n g that office rs had pr obable c ause to a rre st for “turbulent be havior” in light of a rre stee’s a dmissions that he had “ra ised his voice . . . wa s swear ing loudly and did not cea se this behavior a fter the deputies
re qu e ste d th a t he do so .” ). Gi ve n K ha liq ’s be havio r, the of

fi c e rs ha d p ro ba

ble c a us e to a rr e st h im for disorde rly

conduct, a

nd his arre st was there fore not an unre asonable seizure in violation of the F ourt h A me ndme nt.
B e c a us e the dis tr ic t court c or

re c tly c on c lud e d th a t th e of

fi c e rs ha d p ro ba

ble c a us e to a rr e st, Khaliq’s cla im for malicious prosec ution necessa rily fails. See Thacker v . City of Col umbus , 328 F.3d 244, 259 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (“Althoug h this Court has y et t o re s o l v e t h e ele ments of a f eder al malicious prosec ution c laim, it is c lear that a plaintiff must show, at a minimum, ‘that there wa s no probable cause to justify [hi s] arrest and pr osecution.’” ( c iti ng Da rra h v . Ci ty

of O ak Pa rk, 255 F.3d 301, 312 (6th Cir. 2001))).No. 07-3485

Ab du l-Kha liq v . Ne war

k , e t al

.

Con se qu e ntl y , w he the r o r n ot the di str ic t c ourt e rr e d in c on c lud ingtha

t K ha liq fa ile d to 2 a de qu a te ly

ple a d a n e xce ssi ve -f

or c e c la im i s im ma

te ri a l. - 9 - Khaliq has a lso failed to pre sent a g enuine issue of materia l fac t reg ardingwhether or not the office rs used e x cessive f

orce in his arre st. As explained above, Khaliq admits to ang ry y elling a nd 2 cursingat the off

icer s, car rying on a prolonge d and heated debate about whether or not he had a g un,
and vig or ou sly

op e nin g his c oat in

a g e stu re tow ard the po lic e of

fi c e rs . Kh a liq su ff

e re d a br ie f d os e of peppe r spra

y , was knoc ked to the ground, and was ha ndcuff ed. He does not claim that he w as
mace d for a

n excessively long amount of time, as the plaintiff a lleg ed in Adams v. M etiva , 31 F.3d 375, 384-85 (6th Cir. 1994), on which case Khaliq relies. Ba sed on the version of events a dmitted by Kh a liq , a

nd c on str uin g the e vid e nc e in h is f a vo r, th e of

fi c e rs ’ u se of

fo rc e wa s o bje c tiv e ly
rea sonable unde r the c ircumstance s. See G raham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 395-96 (1989).
Th e re is a lso no g e nu ine iss ue of ma te ri a l f

a ct reg ard ingwh e the r K

ha liq wa s su bje c te d to selec tive enfor ceme nt in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Most importantly , Khaliq ca nnot de mon str a te that he wa s tr e a te d dif fe re ntl y tha

n so me on e to wh om h e wa s si mil arl y sit uate d, a s is require d for a

selec tive-enf

orce ment claim base d on rac e. See Fa rm Lab or Or g. Comm . v . O hio State Highway Patrol , 308 F.3d 523, 533- 34 (6th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ). A c laimant alleg ing se lective enfor ceme nt of fac ially

neutra l criminal laws must demonstrate that the challeng ed law e nforc ement p ra ct ice “ had a disc riminatory eff ect a nd that it was motivated by a discriminatory

purpose.” Id. (c i t i n g W ayte v . United States , 47 0 U. S. 59 8, 60 8 (1 98 5) ). “ To e sta bli sha dis c ri min a tor

y e ff e c t in
a race case , the claimant must show that simil arly situated individuals of a diffe rent ra ce w ere notNo. 07-3485

Ab du l-Kha liq v . Ne war

k , e t al

.

- 10 - prosec uted.” Id
. (c i t i n g United States v. Armstrong , 5 17 U. S. 4 56 , 4 65 (1 99 6) ); see also Boone v. Sp ur ge ss , 385 F.3d 923, 932 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (“In order to make out an equal prote ction claim on the basis of selec tive enfor ceme nt, a plaintiff must demonstrate that someone simil arly situated but for t h e i l l egi t i m at e c l as s i fi ca t i o nu s edb y t h e go v ern m en tac t o r w a s t r e at edd i ff er en t l y . ”)
. Al t h o u gh Khaliq ar g ues that he w as si milarly situated to his white girlfrie nd, who was not arr ested, Kha liq was y elling, c ursing , and makingg estures pe rce ived to be thre atening , while his g irlfriend w as not.
B e c a us e Kh a liq

ha s f a ile d to de mon str a te a

c on sti tut ion a l vi ola

t i o n, his § 1 98 3 c la ims a g a ins t the City nece ssarily fail. To succe ed on a muni cipal li ability claim, Khaliq must demonstrate both: (1) the deprivation of a constitutional rig ht, a nd (2) that the City

is responsible for that violation. See Do e v . Clairbo rn e Cou nty , 1 0 3 F. 3 d 4 9 5 , 5 0 5 -0 6 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) ( ci t i n g Colli ns v. City of Harker He igh ts , 5 03 U. S. 1 15 , 1 20 (1 99 2) ). Hi s fa ilure to de mon str a te a c on sti tut ion a l viol a tio n d oo ms h is claim at step one
. Finally , beca

use Kha liq’s fede ral c laims cannot survive summar y judgme nt, it was proper for the district c ourt to decline to e x erc ise supplemental jurisdiction over his state- law cla ims. See 28 U. S.C § 13 67 (c )( 3) ; Saglioccolo v. Eagl e Ins. Co. , 112 F.3d 226, 233 ( 6th Cir. 1997) (citing United Mine W

orkers v . Gibbs , 282 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)).
For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt in favor of the de fenda

nt Cit y and off icer s.