RECOM M ENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pur suantto S ixth Cir cuit I.O .P . 3 2.1( b) File Na me: 13a 0243p .06 

### UNITED S TATES CO URT OF APPEALS

FO R T H E SIX T H C IR C U IT

_________________
D WAYNE M I ED ZI A N O WSKI , as an a g ent for the mun ic ipa l c or

po ratio n a

nd a s an in div idu a l; J ER EMY M C G R AW , as an a g ent of the Munic ipa l c or

po ratio n, and

a s ani n d i v i d u a l , j o i n t l y an d

s e v e r a l l y, Pe tit ion e rs . X

- - - - > , N No. 13

- 101

Up on Pe tit ion fo r P e rm iss ion

to A pp e a l fr om a n o rd e r o f U nit e d St a te s D ist ri c t Co ur t f o r t h e E a s t e r

nD i s t r i c to f

M i c h i g ana tB ay C i t y. No. 1:08-cv- 10997—Thomas L . Ludington, District Judge

.

Dec ided and F iled: Aug ust 20, 2013 B e fo re : B AT CH EL DE R, C hie f Jud g e ; K EI TH and STR AN CH , Ci rc uit

Judg e s.

_________________ OR DE R

_________________ Police office r Petitioners—Def endants below—in this civil rig hts action petition for lea ve to appe al the order g ranting Plaintiff-Respondent a new trial on the g round that the jur y ha d b e e n e rr on e ou sly

ins tr uc te d that to s uc c e e d o n h is c la ims of de lib e ra te ind if fe re nc e to a kn ow n me dic a l ne e d, Pla int if f wa s r e qu ir e d to pr ov e tha t D e fe nd ants ’ deliberate indiffer ence was the pr ox imate ca use of de cede nt’s death.
Th is c a se inv olv e s th e de a th o f t he Pla int if

f ’ s b r o t h e r , d e c e d e nt Wi lli a m Sc ozzari , who was f

atally shot by two police off

icer s, Defe ndants. Plaintiff, acting as repr esen t at i ve of de cede nt’s estate, br oug ht a civil rig hts action alleg ing c laims of

e xce ssi ve fo rc e and de lib e rate ind if fe re nc e to a kn ow n me dic a l ne e d. Af te r D e fe nd ants ’ moti o n f o r s u mm ar

y ju d g me n t o n qu a li f

ie d immu n it y g r o u n d s w a s d e n ie d , a tr ia l w as held and the j u ry

found in favor

of De fenda

nts on both claims. The district court instructed the jury

that Pl ai n t iff must prove De fenda nts’ deliberate indiffer ence proxi mately

cause d dece dent’s death. Plainti ff filed a mot ion for new trial, ar g uing that

1No. 13

- 0101 In r e M iedzi anow ski Pag e 2

the district court re versibly err ed by g iving this instruction. The district c ourt ag ree d, and g ra nte d Pl a int if

f’s mot ion

fo r a ne w t ri a l on ly on the de lib e ra

te ind if fe re nc e c la im beca use our c ircuit has held that “ in delay -of- treatment case s, it is not nece ssary to show that the de lay

in p ro vid ingme dic a l c are pr oximate ly c a us e d th e inj ur

y ” wh e n it

wo uld be ob vio us to a

lay pe rs on that th e re wa s a

ri sk of ser io us harm w ith ou t im me diate medical attention. Sc oz

za ri v . M iedzia no wsk

i, 454 F. App’ x 455, 464 n.8 (6th Cir. 2012). F or this conclusion, we r elied on our published opinion in Estate of Owensby v

. City of Cinc inn ati , 414 F.3d 596, 604 ( 6th Cir. 2005).
Def endants filed a motion for re lief fr om the order g ranting a new

trial, arguing that they wer e entitled to qualified immunity on t he deliber ate- indiffer ence claim; the mot ion wa s d e nie d, and

the ir a pp e a l of that r

uli ngis a lso c ur

re ntl y pe nd ingbe fo re thi s Court. Defe n dants subsequently moved to cer

tify the orde r g ranting a new trial for a n interlocutory

appea l under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) r eg arding the que stion of whether Pla int if f w a s r e qu ir e d to pr ov e pr oximate c a us e . Se c tio n 129 2( b) pr ov ide s a s f oll ow s: Whe n a dis tr ic t ju dg e , in

makin g in a c ivi l a c tio n a n o rd e r n ot o the rw ise appea lable under

this section, shall be of the opinion that s u ch order involves a controlling question of law as t o which ther e is substantial g round for differ ence of opi nion and that an immediate appea l from the order may materia lly advanc e the ultimate te rmination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order . The Court of Appe als which wo uld have jur isd ic tio n o f a

n a pp e a l of su c h a c tio n may the re up on , in i ts discretion, per

mit an appea l to be taken f rom such orde r . . . .
Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nte d the mot ion , a

nd De fe nd ants no w s e e k p e rm iss ion to a pp e a l to thi s Co ur t.
Def en d an t s ca n n o t s at i s fy t h e re q u i rement that “a substantial g round for differ ence of opinion e x ists re g arding the cor rec tness of the de cision” and so they may not pursue an inter locutory appea l here . District co u rt s in this circuit have inter prete d “a substantial g round for differ ence of opinion . . . reg ardingthe cor rec t n es s of the decision” to mea

n when “ (1) the que stion is di fficult, novel a nd either a q u es t i o n on which ther e is littl e pre cede nt or one whose cor rec t resolution is not subs tantially g uidedNo. 13

- 0101 In r e M iedzi anow ski Pag e 3
by previous dec isions; (2) the question is difficult and of first impression; ( 3) a diffe renc e of opinion exi sts within t he contr olling cir cuit; or (4) th e ci rc uits are split on the question.” City of D ea r b o r n v. Comcast of Mich. II I, Inc

. , N o
. 0 8

- 1 0 1 5 6 , 2 0 0 8 WL 5084203, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 24, 2008). The district c ourt relied o n t h e f ac t that other c ircuits require a finding of proximate cause in delay -of- treatment case s. Howeve r, there is no diff

ere nce of opinion in this circuit, and we vie w the re levant inquiry under the fo ur th p ro ngto b e wh e the r the re is a cir c uit sp lit on a qu e sti on that ou r o wn c irc uit has not answered. Whe re our c ir c uit ha s a ns we re d th e qu e sti on , th e dis tr ic t c ourt is bound by our published authority . And so are we.
Be cause there is g overning prec edent in this circ uit that settles the issue at hand, Def endants c annot show the e x traordina ry circ umstances suc h that an interloc utory appea l should be g rante d. See Kraus v. B d

. o f Cnty. Rd. Comm’rs for Kent Cnty. , 364 F.2d 919, 922 (6th Cir. 1966) (observing that § 1292(b) “ should be sparing ly applied “and” is to be used only

in exceptional case s”).
Fo r the fore g oing r easons, the pe tition for permission to file the interlocutory

a pp e a l is DENIED.
EN TE RED B Y O RD ER O F TH E CO UR T

__________________________________ Debor ah S. Hunt, Clerk