NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 11 a0183n .06 No . 09-2171 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
KENNET H HOW ARD, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t,
v. W AY NE C OU NT YSH ER IF F’ S OF FI CE , W AYNE COUN T Y, D EPUT Y FRANK W OOD , and D EPU TY JOH N HA RD IE, Defend ant s-Appe llees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE U NITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COUR T FOR T HE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: DAUGHT REY, C LAY, and W HIT E, Circuit Judges.
MA RTH A C RA IG DAU GH TREY , Ci rc uitJu dg e. Plaintif f Kenn eth How ard ap pea ls f rom th e orde r of

the distri c t c o u rtg rantin g sum ma ry judgmen t to the defend ant s in this ci v il r ig hts act ion ch arg ing them w it h ar re sti ng H ow ard w it hout probabl e c ause and us ing
ex ces si v e forc e i n maki ng the ar re st. H ow ard fil ed hi s o ri g ina l compl ain t pro se in s tate
cour t, ra is ing v ar iou s s tate tor t and co nst it uti onal cl aims ag ain st W ay ne C ounty , t he W ay ne Cou n ty Sher iff’s O ff ic e, an d two W ay ne C ounty D eputy Sher iffs, F ra nk W ood and Jo hn Hardie

. After re mov al to federal cour t, the dis tr ict judg e const ru ed some of the a ll eg ati ons in the c omplai nt as rais ing federal co nst it uti onal cl aims and treated the a cti on as one ar is ing under

42 U .S.C . § 1983.09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

- 2 - Fol low ing respon si v e pl eadi ng s and a per iod of disc ov er y , the di str ict c our

t g ra nted the d efendants’ moti on for summar y j udg ment, ru li ng thatthe pl ain ti ff had been s ubj ectto
a c onst it uti onal ly

v ali d ar re st for obs tr uct ing an o ff ic er i n the performanc e of

his duti es and tha t the use of

pep per spray did not con stitute e xc e s s ive force in this case beca use How ard w as a c ti v el y

res i s ti ng a r res t att he t i me i t w as u s ed

. Th e di s tr i c t c ou rt th erefore dism issed th e claims a gainst the dep uties a nd ruled that t h e Count y and the Sh erif

f ’s Off ic e w ere notsu bje ct to s uitunder the ci rc umstan ces i n the record.
W e ag re e tha t t he record fails to suppo rt the compl ain t ag ain st the Cou nty and t hat there is no leg al basi s for the cl aim ag ain st the Sher iff’s Off ic e. W e the re fore affirm that por ti on of the dis tr ict c ourt’ s ju dg ment. Bas ed on the c ur re nt M ic hig an s tatut e and the cases int erpretin g it, w e con clude t h a tthe district cou rt’s decision to dismiss How ard’s cl aims of

f a ls e, mal ic iou s, and unc onst it uti onal ar re st must als o be aff ir med. For the
re asons set out bel ow , how ev er , w e find that the c our t’ s d eci si on di smi ss ing the ex ces si v eforce cl aim is not suppo rt ed by the re cord and must be rev ersed.
FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND In ruling upon the de fend ant s’ motio n for sum ma ry judgmen t, the district court
suc ci nct ly

recoun ted t he facts per ti nent to t his di sput e i n i ts memorand um opi nio n:
This l aw sui t ari ses f ro m Pl ain ti ff ’s arrestbyDefendant Frank W ood, a W ay ne Cou nty Sher iff’s D eputy , i n the l o b b y of the C ole man A. Y oung M uni ci pal Cen ter [ ] i n Det ro it

. Acc ordin g to defendants, Pl ain ti ff , a former empl oy ee of the Ci ty

of Detroitw or ki ng in the [muni ci pal bui ldi ng ], elb ow ed W ood i n the09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

- 3 - sto m ach as he proceed ed th ro ug h the empl oy ee ent ra nce sec ur ity ch e ck poi nt on the morni ng of Aug ust8, 2006. W hen W ood ordered th at Pl ain ti ff st op, P lai nti ff

al leg edl y

respon ded w it h a p ro fane stat ement t o the e ffe c tt h a tW o o d n e e d e d t o g e t o u t o f h i s w a y . W o o d t h e n i n fo r me d P l a i n t i ff mult ipl e times that he w as under ar re st but P lai nti ff

refused to su bmit

. Dur ing thi s ti me W ood all eg es that Pl ain ti ff made more profane sta tements and began to w alk toward the elevators. In resp onse , W ood called for a b a c k u p a n d De fe n d a n t J o h n Ha rd ie , a ls o a W a yn e Co u n t ry S h e ri f f ’s De p u t y, appeared atthe sc ene. P l a i n t i ff, me a n w h i l e , di s p u t e s W o o d ’ s de s c r i p t i o n of t h e s e ev e n t s . Pl a i n t i ff maint ain s t hat h e pol it elyst ated “e x cus e me” as he e ntered th e [muni ci pal buildin g] and w aited for othe r emp loyees and W ood to respo nd b efore w alk ing throug h the se cur ity ch eckpoi nt. Pl ain ti ff

deni es maki ng phy si cal cont act w ith W ood and using profanity that m orning. Af ter Plaint if

f mad e it ha l f- w ay t o th e el ev at ors , ho w ev er , W oo d de ma nd ed th at he s to p an d c om e b a c k

. Pl a i n t i ff a l l e g e s t h a tW o o d a s k e d i f P l a i n t i ff h a d b u mp e d h i m. P l a i n t i ff apol og ized i f

he h ad i n fact bumped W ood, but a ls o ex pla ine d tha t he had said “ex cuse m e.” Th is discussion con tinue d for a few mo me nts be fore W ood al leg edl y

st ated, “ I don ’tkn ow

y ou, s o y ou c an’ t s ay

I’ m g iv ing y ou a hard ti me.” W ood then ind ic ated that Pl ain ti ff w as under ar re st and ordered that Pl ain ti ff

tur n around an d pl ace h is h a nds behi nd hi s b ack

. As W ood reach ed for Plaintif

f ’s hand , Plaintif

f claims to ha v e pu t up his ha nds in sur pr is e. Pl ain ti ff

admi ts that W ood ordered hi m to s ubmitto ar re st four or fiv e ti mes bu t c lai ms t hat, dur ing thi s e x chang e, W ood i n itial ly refused to ind ic ate w hy

he was bei ng ar re ste d. After Pl ain ti ff a sked to kn ow

the charg es mult ipl e ti mes, W ood indic ated that he w as bei ng ar re ste d for ass aul t. Plai nti ff

then asser

ts that he and W ood w alk ed to g ether tow ards the ele v ators i n a j oin t effort t o g et ou t of the w ay of other emplo yee s in the [muni ci pal bui ldi ng ]. As the y w alk ed, P lai nti ff heard W ood c all for b ack up and a f e m ale onl ooker i nformed W ood t hat s he had noti fied th e c ommand sta ti on th at he needed as si sta n ce. Pl ain ti ff admi ts that he y ell ed atthe w om an, called he r “ Goldie Locks,” an d told her to m ind he r ow n bu siness. O n c e H a rd ie a rr ive d a s b a c k u p , W o o d s p ra ye d P la in t if f wit h p e p p e r s p ra y, took hi m to t he g ro und, and pl aced him in handc uffs. Pl ain ti ff as ser ts that W ood’ s t ake- dow n maneuv er ch oked him and caused him to bla ck out as he w as be ing hand cuf

fed. Once Plaint if

f w as ba ck on his fe et, Hardie led him to a jail fa cility

locate d inside the [m unicipa l building]. Plaintif f w as ultim ate ly charg ed w it h as saul ti ng an o ff ic er , bei ng a di sorder ly person, and re fu si ng t h e la wf u l c o m m a n d o f

a n o f f ic e r. P la in t if

f wa s a c qu it t e d o f

a ll c h a rg e s b y a jur y i n 2007.09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

- 4 - Ba se d on th e se eve n ts , P la in ti f f ac ti n g pr

o se , fil ed th e presentacti on ag ain st W ood, Hardie , the W ay ne County Sheri ff ’s Depar

tment, and W ay ne Coun ty in W ayne Coun ty Circuit Court. Pl a in t if f ’s comp laint prese nts six cl aims : (I ) v iol ati on of

his ri g hts as protected bythe Mi chi g an C onst it uti on; (I I) ass aul t and batte ry and ex ces si v e force; (I II) unl awful ar re st in v iol ati on of the M ic hig an C onst it uti on; ( IV) fals e ar re st, fals e i m p ris onment, and int enti onal i nflicti on of emoti onal di stress ; ( V) fals e i mpri sonment ; and ( VI) mali ci ous prosec uti on i n v iol ati on of the Fi fth and F our teent h Amendment s o f t he Unite d Sta tes Con stitutio n. Defend ant s remo v ed th e actio n to th is Cou rt

. . . on t he bas is of federal q uest ion j ur is dicti on.
How ard v. W ayne Co unt

y Sheriff’ s Office , No. 08-1 350 1, 2009 W L 284 913 5, at **1-2 (E.D. Mich. Sep t. 1, 20 09) (citation s omitt ed).
Fol low ing di sc ov er

y , the pl ain ti ff

v olu ntar il y

di smi ss ed hi s tw o c auses of act ion premis ed upon vi ola ti ons of the M ic hig an C onst it uti on. The defendants then fil ed a moti on for sum ma ry

jud gm e n ti n t h eir fa v or on ea ch of the rem aining claims in Howard’s compl ain t. C og niz ant o f t he len ien cy to be ac corded pro se plead ings, how ever, the district
cour t, pr ior to ru li ng upon the s ummary jud g ment moti on, i nter preted How ard’s st ate- law tor t c lai ms t o rai se f e d e ra l cons ti tuti onal i ss ues pursuantto 42 U .S.C . § 1983. Nev erthel e ss , th e c our t c oncl uded t hat u nder

appl ic abl e M ic hig an l aw , defendantW ood had proba ble cau se to arrest Howard f or obstru ction a f ter the plaintif

f ref used to com ply
w it h the order

to pla ce his hands behi nd hi s b ack

. Furth e r mo re , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt g ra n t e d s u mm a r y j u d g me n t t o t h e d e fe n d a n ts on Howard’s ex ces si v e- force cl aim, des pit e ag re ein g w it h the pla int iff t hat g enui ne i ss ues of mater ial fact remaine d reg ardin g the neces si ty of us ing the deg re e of force employ ed by09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

- 5 - W ood and , d e ri va t iv ely, by Hardie. T he co urt conclu ded , howev er, tha t “[t]he precise cont ours o f the r ig ht t o be free from the use of ex ces si v e force re main uncl ear w here an individual of

fers som e form o f

resistance to an a rresting of f icer.” Howard , 2 0 0 9 WL 284 913 5, at*7. Beca use th e district court th erefore de em ed th e rig ht asse rted by How ard
as not “ cl ear ly

es tabl is hed,” the cour

t found W ood and Ha rd ie “s hie lde d from l iab il ity by qualif ied imm unity.” Id.
The di str ict cour

t als o dis mis sed all cl aims ag ain st defendants W ay ne Cou nty and the W ay ne C ounty

Sher iff’s D epar

tment. Q uoting Su m ner v. Wayne C ounty, 94 F. Sup p.2 d 82 2, 82 7 (E

. D. M ich. 20 00), th e cou rt recogniz ed th at be cause the she riff ’s depar tment “‘ is merel y a depar tment w it hin the jur is dicti onal auth or ity of W ay ne C ounty ,’ it is not an en tity capa ble of b e in g sued and mustbe dism issed.” How ard , 2 0 0 9 WL 2849135, at *3 (c it ati on omitted ). The c our t al so g ra nted summar

y j udg ment i n fav or

of the
coun ty itself

b ecau se the p laintif

f m ade n o allegation a nd of fered n o evidence to sugg est “t hat W ood’ s a ll eg ed us e of ex ces si v e forc e w as caus ed by a W ay ne Co u n ty p o lic y or failure to train ,” id. a t*7 , n . 4 , a s re qu ir e d b y Mo nel l v. Dep ar

tm ent o f So ci

al Ser vices , 436 U. S. 6 58 ( 1978)

. DI SC US SION
W e re vie w de n ovothe g ra nt of s ummary jud g ment by a dis tr ict c our t. See Cim inillo
v. Str eicher , 434 F .3d 4 61, 4 64 ( 6th C ir . 200 6)

. Summary j udg ment “ shoul d be re ndered09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

- 6 - if the ple adi ng s, the dis cov er y and dis cl osure mater ial s on file, and any aff ida v it s s how that there i s n o g enui ne i ss ue as to any mater ial fact a n d thatthe mov ant i s e nti tl ed to a judgme nt as a m atte r of law .” Fed. R. Civ . P. 56 (c). No genu in e issue of mat erial fact exists w hen , assum ing t he trut h of the no n-mo v ing party ’s ev iden ce an d con struing all inferen ces f rom th at evidence in the light mostfavor able to tha t party, the m ovant is enti tl ed to j udg ment as a matter of law

. The dis tr ict cour t’ s failu re to deci de th e ex ces si v eforce is sue under

thi s p ri nci ple co nst it utes rev ersi ble er ro r in thi s c ase.
Ar rest W it ho ut Pr ob able Cause
How ard f ir s t cont end s thatdefend antW ood arrested him w ithou t proba ble cau se and t hus v iol ated his co nst it uti onal r ig ht t o be free from unreason abl e s eiz ures. In order to s tate suc ces sfull y

su ch a c lai m under

42 U .S.C . § 1983, How ard “ must se t forth fact s that, w hen c onst ru ed fav orabl y , es tabl is h (1 ) th e d e pr iv ati on of a r ig ht s ecured by the Con sti tuti on or

l aw s o f the U nit ed St ates ( 2) ca used by a pe rs on acti ng under t he c olo r of state law .” Si

gley v. City of Par

m a Heights , 4 3 7 F.3 d 52 7 , 5 3 3 (6t h Cir. 20 0 6 ) (ci ti n g W est
v. Atk ins , 487 U.S. 42, 48 (198 8)) (addition al citation omitt ed). Neithe r partyin this case dis putes the fact th at W ood, at the ti me he ar re ste d the pla int iff, w as act ing under co lor of sta te law as a uni formed deputy of t he W ay ne Cou nty Sher iff’s Dep artm e n t. I nst ead, H o w a rd , i n p re s e n t i n g t h i s c l a i m t o t h e p a n e l o n a p p e a l , a s s e rt s o n l y t h a th e a d duced suffici ent e v ide nce to c re ate a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact reg ardin g W ood’ s j ust ific ati on for ar re sti ng hi m in the firs t pl ace. Sp eci fical ly , t he pl ain ti ff as serts th a t Mi chi g an l aw09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

- 7 - p ro v i d e s t h a t a n i n d i v i d u a l c a n n o t b e s u bj e c t t o a r re s t fo r “ o b s t r u c t i n g ” a n o ff ic er i n the per formance of that o ff ic ial ’s duti es unl ess the ar re ste e has us ed or threatened phy si cal force or has know ing ly faile d “t o compl y w it h a law ful command.” Mi ch. Comp. Law s A nn. §§ 750.81d (1 ) and (7 )( a) (2 004)

. Ac cordin g to How ard, be caus e he offered a v ersi on of events tha t w ould not ha v e justif ied W ood in makin g any arrest, the d efend antdep uty’s direct iv e tha t t he pl ain ti ff pl ace his hands behi nd his bac k a nd s ubmitto an ar re st w as not “a l awful c ommand.”
As hig hli g hted by

H ow ard, t he rele v ant M ic hig an s tatute does i ndeed s eem to require a “l a wf u l” c om ma nd a s a cond ition prece den t to an arrest for obst ru cti on o f a person per

forming hi s o r her

duti es. D espi te t he seemi ng ly unambi g uous lan g uag e c ra fted by the Mi chi g an leg is lat ure, how ev er , Mi chi g an s tate cour ts hav e i nter preted the wordin g of s ect ion 750.81d (7 )( a) in a manner thatal lows a rrest s i n s it uati ons nev er co ntempl ated by the sta te’ s l aw makers. In People v. Mitchell , No. 2 7 8801, 2008 W L 42765 42 ( Mi ch. App. Sept. 16, 20 0 8 ), f o r ex ample, the Mi chi g an C our t of Appea ls broadl y

appl ied lan g uag e from an other ca se from thats a m e c o urt t o c oncl ude t hat s ect ion 750. 81( d) (1 ) doe s “no t includ[ e] the requirem ent

. . . t hatt he und erly ing arrest be legal.” Id. at *2 ( ci ti ng People v. Ve ntu ra , 686 N .W .2d 7 48, 7 50- 56 ( Mi ch. App. 2004) ).
In Ven tura , howev er, the Michig an Cou rt of Appe als examine d a situa tion in which the def e n d a n th ad b een arrested for re si sti ng ar re st under

M ic h. C omp. Laws A nn. § 75 0.8 1d, not for obst

ru cti ng the per formance of of

fici al duti es. See Ven tura , 686 N .W .2d09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

- 8 - at 75 2 ( “A

person maynot use force to resist an arrestmade by

one he k now s o r has
re ason to k now

i s p er forming hi s d uti e s re gar dle ss of w hether the ar re st is i ll eg al.

. . . ” (e mphasi s a dded) ). Be caus e s ect ion 750. 81d( 7) (a ) ex pli ci tl y defines “ obst ru cti on,” but not “resi sti ng ,” to inc lud e “ a k now ing fail ure to compl y w it h a law ful c ommand,” i t s eems c lea r that the M ic hig an l eg is lat ure so ug ht t o di fferenti ate b etw een t he admi ttedl y rela ted
conc epts of “resi sti ng ar re st” and “o bst ru cti ng a pe rs on per forming off ic ial duti es. ”
W ere this court called upo n to inte rpret Michigan law on a bla nk slate , it might w ell
c h o o s e t o a d h e re t o t h e s t r i c tl a n g u a g e o f Ven tura w ithou t the imprecise , expansive g loss
a d d e d t o t h a tc a s e b y Mitchell

. How ev er , w e are noti n a p osi ti on to rein ter pret t he Mi chi g an judi ci ar

y ’s ev alu ati on of

Mic hig an statut or

y law . W e must , i nst ead, defer t o s tatecourt pre cede nt th at equa tes “resistan ce” and “obstr u c t io n ” un der sectio n 75 0.8 1d(1 ), desp ite the statu te’s explicit differen tiation of the con cept s.
In an y event, the acad em ic exercise of parsing the stat uto ry

language is of

no he lp to Howard in this case. Th e inciden t report pre pare d by defend antW ood af ter the seiz ure of the pla intif

f clearly indicate s thatHow ard w as arreste d for “a ssault u pon [a] po lice of f icer,” “ re sis t[

ing] a r rest,” and “disorde rly

cond uct.” Th e the oretica l distinction s app licable to ar re sts for “ obst ru cti on” are thu s i rrele v ant i n this m a tt e r and H ow ard w as re q uired to compl y w it h W ood’ s req uestto pla ce his hands behi nd his back reg ardle ss of w hether

the defend antdep uty sheriff had prob able cause to v oice such an orde r. The district court did09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

- 9 - not, therefore, er r in g ra nti ng summar y jud g ment t o the defendants on H ow ard’s cl aim of false ar re st/ mali ci ous prosec uti on.
Exc ess iveForce/Qua lified Immunity
How ard al so all eg es that his r ig ht t o be f re e from t he us e of ex ces si v e forc e w as
v iolate d w hen W ood arrested him. T he d istrict court agreed w ith the plaintif f thathis
v ersi on of the ev ents leadi ng to his arrestw oul d suppor t the concl usi on that W ood us ed
unnec ess ar il y

ex ces si v e forc e i n s ubdui ng the pla int iff. See How ard , 200 9 W L 28491 35, at * 6 ( “P lai nti ff

deni es maki n g p h ys ic al cont actw it h W ood atany ti me, deni es usi ng profanity , den ies y ell ing at W ood, and den ies w alki n g a way from W ood t o av oid ar re st. Vi ew ing thes e facts i n the l ig ht most fav orabl e to Pl ain ti ff , W ood’ s conduct mig ht be found to ha v e c onst it uted ex ces si v e force. ” ( ci tati on omitted ))

. Indeed, i n the face of a c lai m of
ex erci se of ex ces si ve force, a c our t mus t pay

“ careful attenti on to the facts and ci rc umstan ces of each par ti cul ar case, in cl udi ng the sev er ity of the cr ime at i ss ue, w hether the s uspect pos es an immediat e threatto the safety of the o ff ic ers o r others, and w hether he is actively resisting arrest or atte mp ting to evade arrest by f lig ht.” Gr ahamv. C onnor

, 490 U .S. 386, 396 ( 1989)

. He re , t a k in g e a c h fa c tin t h e l ig h tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e p la in t if f , t h e re c o rd sh o ws that Howard w alk ed into the munic ipa l bui ldi ng w here he w or ked, m ov ed pas t defendant W ood af ter saying “ex cuse me,” and w as accost ed by the dep uty sherif f , w ho, af ter a sho rt dis cus si on, i nformed H ow ard tha t he w as under ar re st for an unspe ci fied transg re ss ion

.09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

- 10 - W ood reache d to g ra b How ard’s hand, but How ard jer ked his hands aw ay in sur pr is e and asked sev eral time s to know the charge a ga in s th im. Even af ter W ood ev ent ually
re spond ed th at he w as ar re sti ng H ow ard for ass aul t, the p lai nti ff did not ex hib itanysi g ns of v er bal or

phy si cal ag g re ss ion tow ard the defendant. The pl ain ti ff di d, ho w ev er , i n the face of cont inu ed orders to p la ce h is hands behi nd hi s b ack , di sobey the direct iv es and cont inue discussing (peace f ully ) w hy W ood shou ld notarre st him. Af ter Depu ty Hardie arriv ed o n the scene to of fer assistan ce, W ood then , w ithou t provocation , sprayed How ard in the face w it h peppe r spray , pl aced his hands and ar ms around the pla int iff’s n eck , and fo rc e fu l l y

t o o kH o w a rd t o t h e g ro u n d , l a n d i n g a t o p t h e p l a i n t i ff. Despite f inding tha t such act ions am oun ted to a d e p ri vation of How ard’s
cons ti tuti onal r ig ht t o be free from the use of ex ces si v e forc e, t he di str ict j udg e furt her
conc lud ed th a tt h e r i g h tw a s n o t“ c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d ” b e c a u s e “ [ t ] h e p re c i s e c o n t o u rs of the r ig ht t o be free from the u se of ex ces si v e forc e remain unclea r whe re a n i ndi v idu al of fers som e form o f

resistance to an arresting of f icer.” How

ard , 200 9 W L 28491 35, a t * 7. The di str ict c our

t t hus found “W o o d s h ie lde d from l iab il ity by q ual ified i mmunity

and defend ant s . . . entitled to su m m a ry ju d gmen t on Pla intif f ’s ex cessive fo rce claim.” Id. (foot not e om itted ).
Qua lifie d imm unity from liability is av ailable to g overnme nt of f icials “insofar as the ir condu ct does not v iol ate c lea rl y es tabl is hed s tatut or

y or con st it u ti o nal r ig hts of w hic h a
reaso nab le perso n w ould have known.” Harlow v. Fitz gera ld , 457 U.S. 800 , 818 (1982 ).09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

- 11 - In ot her w ords, “[t]h e c o n t o urs of the right mustbe suf

f iciently clear tha t a reaso nab le of f icial w ould und erstan d tha t w hathe is d oing v iolate s thatrig ht.” Ander son v. Cr eighton , 483 U .S. 635, 6 4 0 ( 1 9 8 7 ). Al thoug h “ the e x actacti on i n q uest ion [nee d] no t [ hav e] prev iou sl y

been hel d unl awful by

a cour t,” the pl ain ti ff

mustst il l “s how

the pr ior ar ti cul ati on of a prohib ition againstthe type of ex cess force exerted he re.” Ch a m p io n v . O u t look Nashville, In c. , 380 F.3d 89 3, 90 1-02 (6th Cir. 2004 ).
In reachi ng i ts conc lus ion thatthe defendant dep u ti e s w ere ent it led to q ual ified immuni ty , t he di str ict j udg e c it ed th re e Sixth Ci rc uitcases inv olv ing the use of pepper sp ra y in an attempt to elu ci date the pur por ted lac k of un ifor mity in suc h deci si ons occ asi oned by
an ar re ste e’s v ar

y ing lev els of res is tanc e to author ity . How ard , 200 9 W L 28491 35, a t * 7 (ci ti n g Gr eene v . Ba rb er , 310 F. 3d 889, 898 (6 th Ci r. 2002) ; Abd ul-Kha liq v. City of Newark , 275 F . Ap p’x

517 (6 th C ir . 200 8) ; Vaughn v. City of Le banon , 18 F. A p p ’x 252 (6th Cir. 2001) ). I n two of thos e c it ed c ases , how ev er , t he pl ainti ffs a dmitted, or di d notdi sput e, eng ag ing i n i ncend iar

y act ion s that ser

v ed to i nflame al re ady -v ola ti le si tuati ons. G re ene, for example , called th e arresting of f icer “an assho le” and “really stup id,” see Gr eene , 310 F

. 3 d a t8 92-9 3, an d w as “physically ” and “v erba lly resisting arrest in an a gg ressi ve ma nne r.” Id. at 8 9 9

. A bdul -K hal iq al so admitted t o bei ng v er bal ly abus iv e toward the
ar re sti ng off ic ers, as w ell as “ open[i ng ] or rais [i ng ] his coat i n a p otent ial ly threateni ng manner” before b ein g sp ra y ed w it h peppe r spray . Abd ul-Kha liq , 275 F . Ap p’x at 518.09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

- 12 - B y c o n t ra s t , V a u g h n , l i k e H o w a rd , d e n i e d e n g a g i n g i n a n y a c t i o n s t h a tw o u l d j u s t i fy
ar re sti ng off ic ers u si ng peppe r spray to subdu e hi m. B ecaus e bel ief i n the v eraci ty of Vau ghn’s accou nts of

his encou nte rs w ith the police an d the ir peppe r sp raycaniste rs wo u ld le a d t o t h e co n c lu s io n t h a t e xc e s s ive fo rc e h a d b e e n u s e d t o t a k e h im in t o cu s t o d y,
w e reversed the d istrict judge’s g rants of q ualif ied imm unity to t hose defend ant s w ho co uld be c onnected t o peppe r- spray ing by Vaug hn’ s t est imony

or b y o ther

ev ide nce. See Vaughn , 18 F. App’ x

at 266- 70.
Interest ing ly , i n one suc h i nci dent, V a u ghn ev en “ admitted t o ‘jer k[i ng ] one hand away ’ as one o f

the off ic e rs a t tem pte d to ha ndcu f f him.” Id. at 268 . Th is court
nev erthel ess rev ersed the dis tr ict c our t’ s g ra nt of s ummary

j udg ment for the d efendant on a q ual ified immuni ty cl aim, noti ng that “t here i s a q uest ion of fact w hether [Va ug hn] p osed an im me diate threatto the safety of the of f icers or others, or w het her the of f ic e rs interp reted his move m e n ta s an att em pt to resist arrest.” Id. Si mil ar ly , i n thi s c ase, alt houg h W ood c lai med thatH ow ard pul led hi s a rm aw ay from the d eputy w hen W ood w as attempt ing to ar re st him, the pla int iff cla ims merely “ to ha v e putup h is hands i n s ur pr is e.” Howard , 2 009 W L 28491 35, a t * 1. Such tes ti mony ag ain creates a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact for

a j ur y to cons ide r in deter mini ng w hether the re spons e of D eputy W ood
w as excessiv e in lig ht of the pla intif

f ’s statem ent s and action s.
T here is no disput e tha t “[t]he use of a chem ical w eap on su ch as pe ppe r spray is not per se unreaso nab le.” Vaughn , 18 F. App’x at 266. N ev erthel ess , i t i s a ls o tr ue th at09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

T he district judge foun d Hardie protecte d by qualif ied i mm unity a s t o Ho w ard’s 1 ex ces si v e forc e c lai m beca use “t he c lai m ag ain st Hardie i s b ased on H ardie ’s fail ure to prevent W ood f rom u sing ex cessive fo rce,” How ard , 200 9 W L 284 913 5, at *7 n.4 , and if W ood di d notv iol ate a cl ear ly -e sta bli shed ri g ht, Hardie ’s i nact ion al so coul d n o t le a d to section 198 3 liability . On the othe r hand , a f inding tha t W ood d id inde ed violate Howard’s ri g ht t o be free f ro m the appli cat ion of ex ces si v e forc e dur ing an a rrestco uld al so lea d to l i ab i l i ty for H ardi e on t he p l ai nt i ff’s d er i v at i v e c l ai m.

- 13 - “[w]e ha v e previously foun d tha t the use of a chem ical w eap on, if un reaso nab le in ma nne r, ma y constitu te excessiv e force.” Id. (cit in g Ada m s v. Metiva , 31 F .3 d 37 5, 384 (6th Cir. 199 4)). Thu s, by the time of How ard’s enco unt er w ith W ood in August 2006 , the principle of l a w w a s a l re a d y c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t u s e o f p e p p e r s p ra y o n a n a r re s t e e w h o w as not a cc used of a ser iou s cr im e , w as not p osi ng an i mmediat e threat t o the sa fetyof the of f icer or others, an d w as no t actively resisting arrest or seeking to f lee is constitu tiona lly
unreason abl e.
Credi ti ng the tes ti mony of the p lai nti ff , as w e must , H ow ard w as nei ther bel li g erent
nor v iol ent i n anyof

his deal ing s w it h Deputy W ood. Additi onal ly , ev ide nce adduc ed by the pla int iff sug g est ed th at he had nev er re si ste d ar re st but merely att empted t o as cer

tai n the
re ason for hi s d etent ion

. In s uch a sit uati on, a jury could reach the conc lus ion thatus e of pepper sp ra y ag ain st the p lai nti ff

co nst it uted ex ces si v e forc e. The di str ict c our t t hus er re d in g ra nti ng su mmary jud g ment to defendants W ood and H ardie bas ed upon the doct ri ne 1
o f qu a li f ie d im m u n it y.09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

- 14 - CO NC LU SION
W e find no meri t to the re maini ng iss ues ra is ed on appeal . The dis tr ict c our t di d not
e r r i n d i s mi s s i n g w h a tH o w a rd l a b e l s “ fe d e ra l to rtcl a i ms , ” be c a u s e H o w a rd di d no ti d e n t i fy any fe dera l actors w ith regard to tho se claims. Nor can th e district court be reason ably
acc used of judi ci al bia s t ow ard H o ward. I n fact, the dis tr ict j udg e ac corded t he pro se plaint if f every ben ef it of the dou bt w hen interp reting his plea dings and ruling o n mot ions. Fi nal ly , w e reje ct How ard’s clai m that the dis tr ict cour t erred in granti ng su mmary j udg ment to th e de fend ant s w ithou t ensu ring tha t t h e y h ad resp ond ed a dequa tely to Howard’s dis cov er y req uest s, becau se he nev er fil ed a moti on to c ompel dis cov er y . Mo re ov er , i n l ig ht of our order of remand, the plai nti ff

w il l hav e additi onal opportu nit ies for disc ov er

y pri or to the comm ence me nt of

any tr ial.
Beca use w e c oncl ude t hat t h e plai nti ff es tabl is hed s uff ic ien t ev ide nce to rais e a g enui ne issue of mater ial fact reg ardin g w hether defendants W ood and H ardie us ed, o r per mitt ed th e us e of , ex ces si v e forc e i n hi s a rrest , w e find itnec ess ar y to RE VER SE t he jud g ment of th e di str ict c our t on the c lai m of ex ces si v e forc e and RE MA ND the cas e for f urthe r proceed ings on thatclaim. In a ll o t h e r respe cts, the district court’s judgmen t is AFF IR ME D.09- 2171

How ard v. W

ayne Count

y Sheriff’ s Office

- 15 - HELENE N. W HITE, Circuit Judge (c oncur ri ng ). I joi n in the major ity ’s rev ersal of the district court’s g rant of sum ma ry judgme nt to defend ant s on How ard’s excessiv e force claim an d its discussion of the qualif ied-imm unity issue. I also jo in i n the m ajority’ s conc lus ion thatthe dis tr ict cour t did not err

in granti ng summary

judg ment t o defendants on Howard’s cl aim of fals e ar re st/ mali ci ous prosec uti on.