The Ho norabl e Greg or y Van Tatenhov e, U nit ed St ates D is trict J u dg e for the * East er n D is tr ic t of Kent ucky , s it ti ng by des ig nati on. A Taser i s a n el ect ro shoc k w eapon w it h tw o metal li c prong s attac hed to tw o 22- foot 1 c a b le s , wh ich the of

f icer shoot s at a susp ect to imm obilize him. Af ter the prongs h a ve been dis charg ed, the off ic er ca n c onti nue t o s hock

the sus pect

. Robe rts v. Manig old , 240 Fed. Appx. 675, 6 76 n .2 (6th Cir . 2007 ).

NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 11 a0125n .06 No . 08- 2543 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
R ON AL D S C H M AL F EL D T, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. JAS ON R OE, Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE U NITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COUR T FOR T HE W ESTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: BATCH ELD ER , Chi ef C ircui t Judg e; DA UG HTR EY , Ci rc uit Judg e ; V AN TATENH OVE, D is tr ic t J udg e. *
MA RT HA

C RA IG DA UG HT RE Y , Ci rcu itJu d ge . D efendant J ason Roe , a member of th e Colo ma Tow nshi p ( Mi chi g an) Pol ic e D epar tment, appeal s from an order of the district court de nying him qualif ied imm unity a t the su mm aryju dgme nt stage, in this civ ilri g hts acti on f il ed by

pl ain ti ff R onal d Sc hmalfeld t pursuantto 42 U .S.C . §§ 1983 an d 1988. Roe , al ong w it h three ot her l ocal pol ice o f

f ice rs, arrest ed Sc hmalfeld t at hi s h ome on a charg e of do mesti c v iol ence. Dur ing the ar re st, Roe tw ic e used his Taser on Sc hmalfeld t, 1No. 08- 2543

Schm alf eldt v . R oe

- 2 - prompti ng Schmal feldt to br ing thi s sui t all eg ing use of ex ces si v e force. Roe in voked q ual ified i mmunity

as hi s d efense, w hic h the di str ic t c our t reje cte d, con cludi ng that “g enu ine issue s of

mat erial fact preclu de[ d] sum ma ry judgmen t.”
Not ing that“[a]l thoug h the underl y ing f act s [w e]re i n di sput e, t he g eneral course of events [w a]s no t,” the d istrict court sum ma riz ed th e factu al record as follows:
W hen th e p o li ce off ic ers e ntered th e pl ain ti ff ’s resi dence , t hey sp oke w it h pla int iff and hi s g ir lfri end, [Kat hle en Gross ,] wh o had been arg uin g
. Both pla int iff and [Gross ] had apparentphy si cal i nju ri es. Pl ain ti ff appeared to be hig hly i ntox ic ated. Defendant deci ded to arrestplai nti ff , w ho w as seat ed at the d in in g ro om table . W hen plaintif f failed to respon d to de fend ant ’s ins tr uct ion s d ur ing the course of t h e ar re st, defendant depl oy ed hi s Tas er w eapon, and pl ain ti f

f f e ll t o the floor

. W hen pl ain ti ff fail ed to co mply

w it h def end ant ’s fu rther instructio ns to roll o ve r o n his stom ach a nd p lace his han d s behi nd hi s b ack , defendantdepl oy ed th e Taser a s econd ti me, inc apaci tati ng pla int iff, w hereupon pla int iff w as handc uff ed and ta ke n i nto c u s t o d y.
T he d efend antmain taine d tha t i t wa s nece ssaryto use th e T aser against Schmal feldt b ecaus e he w as re si sti ng ar re st. Sc hmalfeld t, how ev er , ex pla ine d tha t he had not fol low ed th e off ic er ’s orders i mmediat ely bec ause he di d notundersta nd w hy he w as bei n g a r r e s t e d , g i v e n t h e fa c tt h a th e w a s t h e o n e w h o h a d c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e t o a s kt h at Gross be remov ed from h is hous e due to her v iol ent behav ior

. Schmal feldt als o s aid that the o ff ic ers remaine d at lea st four feet aw ay from w here he w as si tti ng in a c onfined a re a eati ng din ner and that they made no phy si cal cont act w it h him before R oe s uddenl y , and
w it hout any

w ar nin g , dep loy ed th e Taser ag ain st him. Sc hmalfeld t was kn o ck ed to the floor , w here he lan ded on his bac k. Ordered to roll ov er onto hi s s tomach , Sch m a lf e ldtNo. 08- 2543

Schm alf eldt v . R oe

- 3 - sai d he w as unabl e to compl y bec ause he c oul d notmov e. Nev erthel ess , Roe s hock ed Schmal feldt a g ain

. He w as then forci bly pul led up from t he floor , han dcuffed, and remov ed f rom the house. At some point during this enco unt er, a ten don in Schm alfeldt’s right arm detac hed from his bi ceps musc le.
Schmal feldt w as ult imat ely charg ed w it h “ re si sti ng and obst ru cti ng an o ff ic er” and domest icv iol ence. H e pl eaded g uil ty to les ser-i ncl uded c harg es and ev entual ly i nit iat ed thi s lit iga ti on. Schmal feldt c ontends thatR oe’ s repeated us e of the Taser – w hen Schm alfeldt was un arme d, of fered no resistan ce, an d w as corne red by fo ur police of f icers
s o t h a t h e o b v i o u s l y h a d n o me a n s o f e s c a p e – w a s o bj e c t i v e l y u n r e a s o n abl e and
cons ti tuted ex ces si v e forc e. On ap peal , t he defendant pur por ts to conc ede the plai nti ff ’s v ersi on of the facts as “und ispute d” in ord er to provide a basis up on which to let us v alidat e his claim th at he is enti tl ed to q ual ified i mmunity

. But thi s c onces si on i s i ll usor y , as ittur ns out, becau se Roe puts the d i s p o s i ti v e facts i nto d is pute, co ntendi ng thatSc hmalfeld t phy si cal ly resi ste d w hen an officer g ra bbed hi s a rm and t hen bec ame phy si cal ly ag g re s s i v e and threateni ng tow ards the o ff ic ers, thus req uir ing us e of the Taser

. The di str ic t c our

t c oncl uded t hat “ [w]heth er the force used to t ake pla int if f into custo dy w as obje c t ive ly reason able und er the to tality of the circum stan ces requires a
re sol uti on of the dis puted facts, ” one t h a t “ depends i n l arg e par t on matters o f cr edi bil ity and th e we ight ac corded t he ev ide nce. ” H ence, as the dis tr ic t c our t hel d, “ the i ss ue ofNo. 08- 2543

Schm alf eldt v . R oe

- 4 - q ual ified i mmunity

ca nnot be det er mined as a matt er of law .” The c our

t add ed th at “ [e]v en allowi ng fo r the fact th at po lice of f icers are required to ma ke split-secon d j u dgme nts in
c ir c u m s t a n c e s t h a ta re t e n s e , u n c e rt a in , a n d ra p id ly e vo lvi n g, t h e fa c t s o f t h is ca s e in vo lve too cl ose a call to deci de the ulti mate que sti on of a cons ti tuti onal v iol ati on as a mat ter of law .” W e ag re e.
Fur ther more, the ex is tenc e of di sput ed fact in thi s c ase w or ks to depr iv e us of author ity to hear

thi s a ppeal , bas ed on the S upreme C our t’ s r uli ng i n Johns on v

. Jones , 515 U .S. 30 5 ( 1995)

. There, the Cou rthel d tha t a defendant ent it led to ra is e q ual ified immuni ty as a de fense may

not appeal a dis tr ic t c our t’ s s ummary

j udg ment order

deny ing q ual ified i mmunity

i f the pretr ial record i s “ suffici ent t o s how a g enui ne i ss ue of fact for trial.” Id. at 307. N oti ng thati nter loc utor y appeals such a s t his one ar e an ex cept ion to the
re q uirement of a “fin al jud g ment” under 28 U .S.C . § 1291, id . at 309, the Cou rtreason ed that jur is dic ti on to rev iew the deni al of q ual ified i mmunity i s a v ail abl e onl y

“ to t he extent that it turns on an issue o f

la w .” Id. at 313 ( emphasi s a nd i nter nal q uotat ion mar ks omi tted) (qu o ti n g Mitch ell

v. F or sy th , 472 U.S. 511 , 530 (1985 )).
T here is no discrete i ssue of law before us. W e ha v e prece den ts stretchin g back at lea st to 19 94 ind icating t hatsp ray ing a suspe ct w ith ma ce – the n the equiv alen t oflaterdevelope d pe ppe r spray s and electrosh ock de v ices –can am oun t to excessiv e force if used unreason abl y

ag ain st a non- re si sti ng su spec t. See Ada m s v. Metiva , 31 F. 3d 375, 387 ( 6th C ir . 199 4)

. Thus, li abi li ty i n thi s c ase tur ns on a credi bil ity de te rmi nati on w it hNo. 08- 2543

Schm alf eldt v . R oe

- 5 - re g ard to the p oli ce off ic er ’s as ser ti on of the need t o ex ert forc e ag ain st the p lai nti ff of the ki n d a n d t o t h e e xt e n t u s e d h e r e
. Th e q u e s t i o n c l e a r l y i s o n e fo r a j u r y a nd notfor t he dis tr ic t c our

t.
Beca use there is no leg al is sue for re v iew in thi s cas e and becau se the q uest ion of q ual ified immuni ty tur ns, as the dis tr ic t cour t deter mined, on g enui ne is sues of di sp u ted
ma terial fact, u nde r Johns on w e ha v e no jurisdiction to en terta in an inte rlocuto ry app eal, and t his one must, therefore, be D ISM ISSE D.