File Na me: 08a0287n.06 Filed: May

22, 2008 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 07-1659 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT J EANNI E RYAN, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. H A Z E L P A R K , JA S O N W E I M E R , J. C L A R K , J. GI EL NI AK, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

/ B e fo re : B OG GS, MA RTI N a nd SI L ER, Cir c uit

Judg e s. BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circ uit Judge

. J eannie Ry an appe als the district court’ s g rant of

su mma ry jud g me nt a g a ins t he r c la im o f e xce ssi ve fo rc e by the po lic e of

Ha zel Park City

. B e c a

us e we f ind that the police o ffice rs did not exceed the bounds of r easona ble forc e, we AFF I RM the district court’s de cision. I This case arises out of Ry an’s a rre st for (1) flee ing a

nd eludinga police of

ficer and (2) assaulti n g , r e s is ti n g , o r o b s tr u c ti n g a p o li c e o f

f ic e r . T h e r e le v an t e v e n ts tr an s p ir e d o n M ar c h 23, 2004, in Hazel Park, Michig an. Ry an did not fee l well when she awoke on Marc h 23; she had two seizures that morning and we nt back to bed until about noon. Upo n wa k i n g, s h e still did not fee lNo. 07-1659

Ry an v . H

az e l P ar k , e t al

. Pag e 2 well, but she drove to the home of a n ex -h u s b an d , Bill Middleditch, to visit her da ug hter. M i d d l ed i t ch l i v edi nFe rn d al e, ab o u tt wo o r t h re e m i l es fr o m Ry an ’ s h o u s e . S o o naf t er arri v i n g, Ry an had a

nother seizure. Middleditch g ave Ry an some medic ation, and she la y down on a c ouch. A short t ime later, Middleditch awoke Ry an and told her she ne eded to lea ve. Middleditch wa lked Ry an to her

car , a blac k SUV. Be cause Ry an did not look well, Middleditch asked if she would be able to drive home. She said she would and g ot in the car . Middleditch rolled down Ry an’s window a fe w inches a

nd turned on the radio to help keep Ry an ale rt, and Ry an bac ked out of the dr iveway and beg an the dr ive home. She turned southward on Woodward Ave nue and the n eastwa rd onto 9 Mil e Roa d. She fe lt a

se izur e c omi ngon

and tho ug ht a bo ut s top pin g bu t dec ide d she c ou ld c omp le te the drive. Her condition w orsene d, and the last thing she reme mbers is turning southward onto J ohn R Road in Hazel Park. At about 6:30 p.m. on March 23, O ffice r Jason W eimer was drivingnorthbound on J ohn R Road when he saw Ry an’s car swerve suddenly from one la

ne to another

in the southbound lanes of JohnR Ro a d. Wei me r t

ur ne d a ro un d to purs ue Ry an. Ry an did no t sto p wh e n h e a c tiv a te d h is l ig hts

so Wei me r “ g a ve a

c ou ple of bla sts ” wi th h is s ir e n, bu t Ry an still did no t stop

. Wei me r t he n f ull y

ac ti v a te d h is s ir e n . Ry an dr o v e s e v e r a l b lo c k s w it h We im e r in p u r s u it

. Ry an f in a ll y s to p p e d in a turn lane, a

nd Weimer exit ed his ve hicle and approa ched Ry an’s SUV. J ust as Weimer approa ched, Ry an drove off a g ain, and Weimer r an bac k to his vehicle to continue the pursuit. Weimer radioed dis patc h th a t he wa s in purs uit of a su sp e c t th a t r e fu se d to sto p. Ry an c on tin ue d f or se ve ra l bl oc ks , stopping a t a tr a f

f ic li g h t an d r

u n n in g a s to p s ig n in th e p r o c e s s , b e f o r e tu r n in g w e s tb o u n d o nto 8 Mile Road. There was no indication t h at s h e excee ded the spe ed limit during this time. Office rNo. 07-1659

Ry an v . H

az e l P ar k , e t al

. Pag e 3 J anee n Gielniak joi ned the pursuit, with her lights and siren a ctivated, a nd Offic er Jason Clark joined the purs uit

on 8 Mile Roa d; he pa sse d Gie lni a k, Wei me r, and Ry an an d p os iti on e d h is p a tr ol c a r i n fr on t of Ry an’ s SU V. Ry an c on tin ue d to dr ive a t a

bo ut t hir ty mil e s p e r h our. Cla

rk g ra du a lly slowed his vehicle, a

nd he and Weimer

box ed Ry an’s c ar in a

nd broug ht it to a stop. After stopping Ry an’s car, Clark and Gielniak approa ched the vehicle w ith guns dra wn. The window was pa

rtially rolled down and the door was locked. They order ed Ry an to showher ha nds and exit the vehicle. Ry an would not show her hands or exit the vehicle, so Clar k spray ed peppe r spray at her fac e throug h the driver’ s side window. Weimer told Ry an he would bre ak the window to unlock the door if she did not ge t out of the ca r, b u t s h e did not respond. Weimer trie d

unsucce ssfully

to break the window with a f lashlight, a

nd then shattere d the window with a baton. Weimer then unl ocked the door and pulled Ry an fr om the car . Weimer testified that Ry an wa s pulling ag ainst him to prevent him from pulling he r out of the car. A s soon as Weimer pulled Ry an out of the car , he felt her try ing to pull awa y from him. He testified that he c ould fee l her muscles tensing , and tha t h e believe d she wa s g oing to pull her arms into her body

to preve nt the office rs from handc uffingher. A s a re s u l t, Weimer employ ed a stra ight- arm ba r take down to throw Ry an to the g round. Weimer held Ry an’s lef t arm and G ielniak her

rig ht as Clark handc uffe d Ry an fr om behind. Ry an testified that she has no rec ollection of the police pursuit or her a ctions during that time. Th e fi rs t th ingsh e re me mbe rs is b e ingou tsi de of he r v e hic le and

loo kin g a t We im er ju st pr ior to being thrown to the g round. Ry an suff ere d a contusion to her r ight ey e and a c ut above that e y e asNo. 07-1659

Ry an v . H

az e l P ar k , e t al

. Pag e 4

a result of being broug ht to the g round by Weimer. Ry an also c laims she now panics e very time she

se e s a po lic e of fi c e r, and that sh e su ff

e rs fr om n ig htm are s a

nd low se lf -e ste e m. I n September 2005, a

jury convicted Ry an of third-deg ree flee ing a nd eluding a police of

fice r in v iol a tio n o f M CL

25 7. 60 2a (3 )( a ) a

nd a ssa ult ing , r e sis ti ng, or ob str uc tin g a po lic e of

fi c e r i n violation of MCL 750.81d. Ry an filed this s uit in Dec ember 2005 and filed her amended complaint in Februa ry 2006. The complaint alleg ed that Weimer, Gielniak, and Clark us ed ex cessive f orce in arre sting he r and that the City

was liable f

or its office rs’ a ctions. Ry an also a lleg ed state la w claims for assault and battery and g ross neg lige nce. T he def endants moved f

or summary

judgme nt, and the district cour t g rante d that motion and dismi ssed Ry an’s c laims. The court first conclude d that Ry an’s e x cessive f o r c e c l a i m s w e r e b a r r e d b y Hec k v. H umphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), bec ause a verdic t for Ry an i nh er

ci v i l s u i two u l d

n ec es s ar i l y

i mp l y t h e i n v al i d i t y o f he r cr i m i n al co n v i ct i o n fo r a s s au l t i n g, resisting , or obst ructing an officer

. The court also ruled that e ven if Ry an’s c laims were not barre d b y Hec k , the def

endants would be entitled to qualified immunity beca use the off

icer s’ ac tions were objectively

rea sonable. F urthermor e, the c ourt held that t he C ity could not be liable f or the a ctions

o f i t s o f f i c e r s b e c a u s e t h e r e w a s n o u n d e r l yi n g c o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o nb y t h e o f f i c e r s . F i n a l l y, the cour t addre ssed Ry an’s state law claims. The c ourt conc luded that there was no g enuine issue of m a te r ia l f a c t b e cause the offic ers be haved r easona bly under the circ umstances. The court ther efor e dis mis se d th e state law c la ims

. IINo. 07-1659

Ry an v . H

az e l P ar k , e t al

. Pag e 5 Th is C ourt

re vie ws de novo a d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s g r an t o f s u mm ar y ju d g me nt. Z

eigler v. Auke rman , 5 1 2 F. 3 d 7 7 7 , 7 8 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Ho llo way v . B ru sh , 220 F.3d 767, 772 ( 6th Cir. 2000)). Summary

judgme nt is proper only

wher e no g enuine issue of materia l fac t exi sts and the moving pa

rty is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6( c ). Th is C ourt vie ws a ll

e vid e nc e in the lig ht mos t fa vo ra ble to the no n- mov ingpa

rt y and dr aws a ll r e a so na

ble inf e re nc e s in favor of t he non-moving party

. Zeigler , 5 1 2 F. 3 d at 7 8 1 (c i t i n g Ma tsu sh ita El e c . I nd us . Co . v . Ze nit

h Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). The non-moving party must “set out spe cific fac ts showing a g enuine issue f

or trial” to de feat a summary judgme nt motion. F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(e). A. Constit utional C laims Gove rn ment officia ls are immune f rom liability

in civil suit s unless a cle arly established constitutional rig ht ha s been violate d. Hills v. Kentucky , 457 F.3d 583, 587 (6th Cir. 2006) (c iting Es tat e of C

ar te r v . Ci ty

of D e tro it , 408 F.3d 305, 310-11 (6th Cir. 2005)). In deter mining whe ther

a c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht ha s b e e n v iol a te d, a c ourt mus t c on sid e r t

he a lle g a tio ns in t

he lig ht m os t favor able to the plaintiff. Sa uc ie r v . Ka tz , 5 33 U. S. 1 94 , 2 01 (20 01 ). I f t he c ourt c on c lud e s a

c on sti tu t i o n a l r i g h t h a s b e e n v i o l a t e d , i t m u s t t h e n d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r i g h t w a s c le a rl y established. Id. A r ig ht i s c le arly est abl is hed if it w ou ld b e c le ar t o a re a so na ble of fi c e r t hat hi s conduct wa s unlawful in the situation he conf ronted. Id. at 202. Ry an alleg es the de fenda nts violated her c lear ly

establis h ed const itutional right to be fr ee from unre asonable seizures when they used excessive for ce to a rre st her. “I

n deter mining whe ther excessive forc e wa s used, cour ts must ask whether the of fice r’s a ctions, in lig ht of the totality of the circ umstances, were objectively rea sonable.” Kostrzewa v. Cit y of Troy , 247 F.3d 633, 639 (6th Cir.No. 07-1659

Ry an v . H

az e l P ar k , e t al

. Pag e 6 2001). F actor s to be considere d are “the sever ity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the off icer s or others, a

nd whether

he is ac tively

resisting arr est or attempting to e vade a

rre st by flig ht.” Graham v. Connor , 490 U. S. 3 86 , 3 96 (1 98 9) . “ Whil e c ourt s must look t o the t otality of t he circumstance s in deter mining whether a seizure was r easona ble, they must be sure to view t h o s e fa cts ‘fr om the perspe ctive of a rea sonable off

icer on the sce ne, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.’” Kos trz e wa , 2 4 7 F. 3 d at 6 3 9 (qu o t i n g Graham , 4 90 U. S. at 396). Thus, even if the forc e used was unrea sonable from Ry an’s pe rspec tive beca use she wa s not in full control of her

actions at the time, we do not judge the use of f orce from her

perspe ctive. I n this case, Ry an wa s fleeing , resisting , and obstructingpolice off icer s. She led three police cruiser s on a chase that lasted almost e ight minutes. As Ry an points out, this was not a high- speed chase , and the testimony

and police re ports from the de fenda nts indicate that Ry an wa s driving at

or be low the sp e e d li mit

duri ngthe c ha se . Ho we ve r, a c ha se ne e d no t be hig h- sp e e d to be da ng e ro us , and the r ecor d indicate s t h at R y an disobey ed tra ffic sig nals and stop sig ns. The cha se conc luded

on ly be c a us e the of fi c e rs fo rc e d Ry an’ s v e hic le to a ha lt. On c e the c ha se did e nd , Ry an r e fu se d to fo llo w the of

fi c e rs ’ d ir e c tio ns to d isp lay he r h and s and ex it th e ve hic le . We ime r h a d to fo rc ibl y

remove Ry an from the vehicle, and Ry an re sisted his efforts. Onc e he ha d Ry an out of the ve hicle, Weimer used the stra ight- arm ba r take down to f

orce Ry an to the g round. I n doing this, he cause d Ry an’s he ad to hi t the pavement, which resulted in a cut, a bruise, and swelling. Weimer testified he for ced Ry an to the g round beca use he could f

eel he r ar m muscles tensing , and he be lieved she w as g oing to r esist being handcuf fed.No. 07-1659

Ry an v . H

az e l P ar k , e t al

. Pag e 7 The thre e fa ctors hig hlighte d b y t h e S upreme Court in Graham weig h in favor of the

re a so na ble ne ss of the of

fi c e rs ’ u se of

fo rc e . F ir st, a lth ou g h Ry an’ s in iti a l c ri me wa s me re ly a tr a ff ic violation – swerving abruptly from one lane to a nother – Ry an ultimately committed t h e f elony offe nses of flee ing and eluding and assaulting , resisting , or obstructing an office r. This Court has held that offic ials are entitled to qualified immunity in the fac e of excessive forc e alleg ations even wh e n th e pla int if

f “ wa s su sp e c te d of re la tiv e ly min or c ri me s” if the pla int if f re sis te d and the of

fi c ia ls responded with force

. Se e W y so ng v . Ci ty of H e ath , 2008 WL 185798 at *6-7 (6th Cir. Jan. 22, 2008) (slip opinion) (discussing such ca ses). Sec ond, Ry an posed a n immediate t hreat to herself and the office rs. She ref

used to pla ce her vehicle in park, a nd it continued to push ag ainst Clark’s cr uiser

even a fter th e chase e nded. Onc e she e x ited the vehicle , she wa s on a busy street a nd the offic ers wished to quickly

place her in c ustody . Third, Ry an ac tively resisted a rre st and attempted to eva de

arr est. I f a r easona

ble offic er would have r ecog nized Ry an’s c ondition and understood that hernonresponsivene ss was beyond her c ontrol, this analy sis might be diffe rent. Howeve r, under the circ umstances, the of

fice rs could not be e x pecte d know that Ry an’s non- responsivene ss might be due to a se izure. Thus we find that, under the totality of the circ umstances, the of fice rs’ a ctions were objectively

rea sonable. “A municipality

or county cannot be liable under

§ 1983 absent a

n underlying c onstitut ional

v i o l at ion by

its officer s.” Blac k

mo re v . Ka lam az oo Cou nty , 3 9 0 F

. 3 d 8 9 0 , 9 0 0 ( 6 th Ci r . 2004) (c i t i n g City of L os Angeles v . Heller , 475 U.S

. 7 9 6 , 7 9 9 (1986)) . Be cause we f ind no underlying consti tuti o n a l v io lati o nb y th e Ci ty ’ s o f

f ic e r s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o c o r r e c tl y d is mi s s e d

Ry an’s claims ag ainst the City

.No. 07-1659

Ry an v . H

az e l P ar k , e t al

. Pag e 8 B. State Law C laims Ry an a rgue s th a t be c a

us e de fe nd ants omi tte d a

rgume nts in f

a vo r o f d ism iss ingRy an’ s st a te law cla ims from their m otion for summ ary judgme nt, the district court should not have c onsidered those arguments. I n the district court, de fenda nts filed a motion for

summary judgme nt but did not ini tia lly make any

argume nts ba se d on the state law c la ims

. F oll ow ing Ry an’ s br ie f in r e sp on se to defe ndants’ mot ion for summary judgme nt, defe ndants filed a r eply to the district court that included arguments to dismi ss the state law claims. Gene rally , this Court has found that an issue ra ised for the first time in a re ply

to a re sponse brief

in the district court is waived. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Fl owe rs , 5 13 F .3 d 5 46 , 5 53 (6t h Ci r. 20 08 ). Ho we ve r, thi s Co ur t ha s d e viate d f

ro m th a t r

ule in

“‘ ex ce p t i o n al ca s es o r p ar t i cu l ar ci rc u m s t an ce s ’ o r wh en t h e ru l e wo u l d p ro d u ce ‘a p l ai nm i s ca rr i age of justice.’” Id. at 5 5 2 (q u o t i n g F o s te r v . B a r ilow , 6 F.3d 405, 407 ( 6th Cir. 1993)). I n deciding whether a ca se pre sents such a sc enar io, we conside r: (1) w hether the issue is a question of law or whether it requires a fac tual deter mination; (2) whether

the issue’s re solution i s clea r; (3) w hether the fa ilure to consider

the issue would re sult in a miscarriag e of just i ce or a denia l of substantial justice; and (4) the par

ties’ rig hts to have an issue c onsidered by both tr ial and appe llate cour ts. Id. (c i t i n g Friendly Farms v. Re liance Ins. Co. , 7 9 F

. 3 d 5 4 1 , 5 4 5 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) )

. Fir s t, whether th e defe ndants are entitled to gove rnmental immunity from Ry an’s state law cla ims is a question of law. Se e He rm an v . Ci ty

of D e tro it , 680 N.W.2d 71, 74 (Mich. C t

. Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ). S econd, the issue’s resolution is clear . The immunity analy sis under state law

is in this case e ssentially

identical to the analy sis unde r § 1983. Third, there is no conce rn about the parties’ rig ht to have an issue he ard by a trial a nd appellate court be cause the district court considere d the issue. See Lex icon, Inc . v. Safec oNo. 07-1659

Ry an v . H

az e l P ar k , e t al

. Pag e 9 Ins. Co. of America , 436 F.3d 662, 670 n.6 (6th Cir. 2008)

. Fur ther, “ both parties fully

briefe d the issue befor e this court.” Id. Finally , this Court has noted in sit uations such as this wher e the tria l court addre ssed the issue and both parties brie fed the issue, “judicial ec onomy require s that this court addre ss t h e m er i t s of the a rg uments raised by

the par ties at this stage of the litigation, rather tha n forc ing the parties to ra ise it with the district court anew on rema nd.” Id. Ry an’s c omplaint includes s tate law c harg es of a ssault and batter y and g ross neg lige nce. Gover nment employ ees are not immune from intentional tor ts suc h as assault and batter y . Brewer

v . P e rri n , 349 N.W.2d 198, 202 (Mich. C t. App. 1984). Howeve r, “[ g ]overnmental ac tions which would normally constitute intentional tor ts a re protec ted by g overnme ntal immunit y if those ac tions

are justified.” Id. A pol ice officer may use reasonable forc e when making an arrest. Id. Michig an define s rea sonable for ce as “‘that which an or dinarily prudent a

nd intelligent pe rson, with the knowledg e and in the situation of the a rre sting off

icer , would have de emed ne cessa ry .’” Id. (quoting Barrett v. United States , 6 4 F .2 d 14 8, 14 9 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 3) ); see also VanVorous v. B urmeister , 687 N. W

. 2 d 1 3 2 , 1 4 1 (M i ch

. C t

. Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e “ o rd i n ar i l y p ru d en tan d

i n t el l i gen tp er s o n ” l an gu age employ ed by

the M ichig an courts signa ls an objective test. The analy sis of whe ther the of fice rs wer e entitled to qualified immunity from Ry an’s § 1983 c laim demonstrated that the office rs’ a ctions were ob je c tiv e ly re a so na ble . T hu s, the of

fi c e rs are no t li a

ble fo r a ssa

ult and batte ry . F ur

the r, be c a us e there was no wr ong ful conduct, the office rs’ a ctions were not gr ossly neg lige nt. Accor dingly , we aff irm the district court’s dismissal of Ry an’s state law cla ims. C. HeckNo. 07-1659

Ry an v . H

az e l P ar k , e t al

. Pag e 10 Under Hec k v. H

umphrey , if

pr e va ili ngin a

c ivi l suit wo uld ne c e ssa

ri ly imp ly the inv a lid ity of a pr ior criminal convic tion, the civil suit is ba rre d. 512 U.S. at 487. While the district cour t found fo r t he de fe nd ants on

thi s b a sis , w e do no t ne e d to re a c h th is i ss ue becau se we find the of fi c e rs ’ actions re asonable

. III Be cause we f

ind that the office rs’ actions wer e objec tively rea sonable, we AFF I RM the gr ant of summary

judge ment by

the district court.