T he Hon or abl e Da nn y C. Re e ves , Un i t e d S t a t e s Di s t r i c t J ud ge f or th e Ea s t e r n Di s t r i c t of

K e nt uc ky, * sitting by des ig nation. -1- NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

File Na me: 06a0738n.06 Filed: Oc tober 5, 2006 No. 05-6660 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT J I M M YR I C O P I GR AM , By an d T h ro u gh His Next Friend (Mother ), L I NDA PI GR AM ; and L I ND A PI GR

AM , Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts , v. RUSS EL LCHAUDOI

N, Def endant- Appellee

. __________________________________/ ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

Be fore : MARTI

N and DA UGHTREY, Circ uit J udg es; and REEVES, District Judge. * DANNYC. REEVES, District J udg e. De fenda nt-Appellant Russell Chaudoin appea ls the district court’s de nial of his motion for summary judgme nt. The sole is sue on appea l is whether the district court er

red in de ny ing the Def

endant- Appellant qualified immunit y for a n alleg ed slap a

nd excessively

tight handc uffs. F or the re asons set for th below, we AF F IRM in part and RE VE RSE in p art
. BACK GR OUND-2-

Th is c a se ari se s o ut o f t

he arr e st o f P la int if

f- Ap pe lle e Jimmy

ri co P ig ra

m. P ig ra m w a s a student at Westside High School in Memphis, Tenne ssee. He suffe rs from manic depre ssion and
rec eives pre scription medication for th i s condition. Howeve r, on April 22, 2003, Pigr am did not have the corr ect amount of medication in his sy ste m b ec au s e h e h ad “skippe d a dose” the nig ht befor e. On that date, Pigr am cr eate d a disturbanc e in his classroom. Ac cordingto Pigram, he was

“ g e tti ngout of

c on tr ol” and wa s a

bo ut “ to g e t int o a fi g ht w ith[an oth e r] s tud e nt. ” As a re su lt, his teac her soug ht assistance f rom Off icer Marc us Frie rson, the Memphis Police O ffice r assig ned to the
sc ho ol

. Frie rson

ha nd c uf fe d Pi g ra m and too k h im o uts ide . F ri e rs on ob se rv e d O ff

ic e r R us se ll Chaudoin driving by

the school and f

lag g ed him down for a ssistance. The parties dispute what happene d afte r F rierson a nd Pigra m rea ched Cha

udoin’s squad ca

r. A. The Defendan t’s Ve rsion of Events Cha ud oin c la ims tha

t, a s F ri e rs on

sta rt e d to pu t Pig ra

m in to h is veh ic le , Pi g ra

m be g an to resist by “bucking ” and “pulling as if he was trying to g et awa y .” Acc ording to Cha

udoin, he g ot out of his c ar a nd we nt a ro un d to a ssi st F ri e rs on

in g a ini ng c on tr ol of Pig ra m. Cha ud oin ind ic a te d th a t, during this ti me, Pigr am was c ursing and resisting the offic ers’ eff orts to place him in the ca r. At that point, Frier son indicated that he continued to hold Pigra m and Chaudoin g rabbe d h i m . Once Pigra m was saf ely restra ined, C haudoin removed Fr ierson’s ha ndcuff s and plac ed his handc uffs on Pigra m. Chaudoin stated that he che cked the cuff s for tig htness and double locke d them. He then place d Pigra

m into his squad ca

r. B. The Plaintiff

s’ Ver sion of

Events Acc ording to Pigram, when they rea ched the squad ca

r, Chaudoin aske d Fr iers on if he ne eded assis ta n c e an d F r ie r s o n r e s p o n d e d a f f ir mati v e ly

. Ch a

u d o in th e n a s k e d Pi g r a m h is n a me and heA r ip h ob bl e is d es cr ib ed a s a lo ngn y lo n stra

p us ed f or f oo t r es tr ai nt
. 1 -3- re sp on de d, bu t Ch a

ud oin a pp are ntl y did no t un de rs tand

him . Pi g ra

m a dmi tte d th a t he “ g ot s mart ” with Chaudoin, and that Chaudoin g o t o u t o f the ca r and sa id “something ” to which Pig ram responde d “F *** y ou.” At that point, Pigra m alleg es that Chaudoin “slappe d” him and “took Off icer Fr ierson’s ha

ndcuff s off a nd put his on.” Pigram testified that the cuf fs wer e too tight whe n they
wer e first plac ed on him and tha t h e “think[s] ” he “ tried to” say something to Chaudoin “but [C haudoin] would not l iste n . ” Howeve r, in a stateme nt to the Memphis Pol ice De partment’s Interna l Af fa ir s B ur e a

u ( “ I AB ” ), wh e n Pig ra

m wa s ask e d if

he tol d a nyon e that th e ha

nd c uf fs we re too tig ht, he re sponded “[n]o he wouldn’t list en.” Pigra m’s mother, L inda, t estified that when she ar rived at the high sc hool, she observe d her son cursing at Chaudoin. She stated t hat, at that point, Chaudoin g ot out of hi s car and slappe d her son. She indicated that Chaudoin then r emoved his cuffs and “put t hem back on tighter ”and that he was then pla ced in the ba ckseat of the squad c ar. The pa rties’ ve rsions of the eve n t s af t er t h e off

icer s place d Pigra

m in the squad ca

r ar e
e sse nti a lly

c on sis te nt. On c e in t

he ba c ks e a t, P ig ram be g an to str ike his he a d a g a ins t th e pla sti c ba rr ie r s e pa ratin g the fr on t and

re ar s e a ts. Th e of

fi c e rs the n atte mpt e d to se c ur e Pig ra m’ s f e e t w ith a “r ip hobble .” Chaudoin wa rned Pig ram that if he d i d not stop kicking, he would be peppe r 1 sp ra y e d. Whe n Pi g ra

m di d n ot c omp ly , Ch a

ud oin sp ra y e d h im a nd the of fi c e rs we re a

ble to a pp ly the rip hobble. Pig ram wa s then transporte d to J uvenile Court by Chaudoin. J eanne Thompson, a juvenile cour t pr obation counselor, met with Pigram on April 22, 2003. Duringthe meeting , she aske d Pigra m about his arre st. She indicated that she did not observe a ny-4-

bruises or other injuries to his wrists. I n addition, she stated that Pigr am had not mentioned “ being slapped, tig ht handcuf

fs or a ny ty pe of injury ,” other

than beingpepper

spray ed. On April 21, 2004, the Pigra ms f iled suit a g ainst the Memphis City Schools, Chaudoin, and the City of Memphis, alleg ing v i o l at i o n s of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for use of excessive forc e during Pig ra m’ s arr e st. Af

te r d ism iss a l of

the Me mph is C ity

Sc ho ols and

the City of Me mph is, Cha

ud oin fi le d a mot ion fo r sum mary jud g me nt. Th e dis tr ic t court de te rm ine d that Cha ud oin wa s ent itl e d to qualified immunity

on the peppe r spra

y and rip hobble claims but denied qualifie d immunit y for the

a lle g e d s la

p a nd a pp lic a tio n o f t

he a lle g e d ov e rl y -t ig ht ha nd c uf fs

. On Oc tob e r 1 4, 20 05 , Ch a

ud oin filed an inter l o cu t o ry appea l, seekingrevie w of the por tions of the district court’s orde r deny ing qu a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y. STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW I n an interloc utory

appea l from the denia l of a motion for summary judgme nt on qualified immun ity g ro un ds , w e have jur isd ic tio n to re vie w the le g a l qu e sti on of wh e the r q

ua lif ie d im mun ity should have be en g rante d. See B ehrens. v . Pelletier , 5 16 U. S. 2 99 , 3 13 (1 99 6) ; Mi tc he ll v . F or sy th , 47 2 U.S. 5 11 , 5 27 (1 98 5) . Re vie w o f t he de nia l of

qu a lif ie d im mun ity

is de novo

. R is bridger v. Con ne lly , 275 F.3d 565, 568 ( 6th Cir. 2002). DI SCU SSIO N A qu ali fi ed im mun ity

ana ly sis c on sis ts o f t

wo qu e sti on s: f

ir st, take n in

the lig ht m os t favor able to the pa

rty asser ting the injury , do the facts alleg ed show the offic er’ s conduct violated

a c on sti tut ion a l ri g ht; and se c on d, if a vio latio n c ou ld be ma de ou t on a fa vo ra ble vie w o f t

he pa rt ie s’ submissi on, was the r ight c lear ly established. Sa uc ie r v . Ka tz , 533 U.S. 194 (2001).-5-

As Saucier

dir e c ts, we mus t f

ir st d e te rm ine wh e the r C ha ud oin vio late d Pi g ra

m’ s F ourt h Amendment rig ht to be fre e fr om exces s i v e force. T he F ourth Amendment’s “ objective

r e a s o n a b le n e s s ” s ta

n d ar d g o v e r n s th e c o n s ti tuti o n a l an a ly s is in e xc e s s iv e f o r c e c la im s in

th e c o n te xt
o f an ar r e s t, inv e s ti g a to r

y s to p , o r o th e r

seizure. B r osseau v. Hauge n , 543 U.S. 194, 197 (2004). I n Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the Supre me Court held that “[d]etermining whe ther the fo rc e us ed to e ff

e c t a pa rt ic ula r s e izur e is ‘ re a so na

ble ’ u nd e r t he F ourt h A me ndme nt r e qu ir e s a
car eful ba lancing of t he nature and quality of t he intrusion on the individual’s Four th Amendment interests ag ainst the counter vailing g overnme nt al i n t er es t s at stake.” Id . at 396. Courts must pay “ca ref ul attention to the fac ts a

nd circ umstances of eac h particula r case , including the sever ity of the
c ri me a t iss ue , wh e the r the su sp e c t po se s an imm e diate thr e a t to the sa fe ty of the of fi c e rs or oth e rs , and whe ther he is actively resisting arr est o r attempti ng to evade arr est by flig ht.” Id . The
rea sonablene ss must be evaluate d “fr om the perspe ctive of a rea sonable officer on the sce ne, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id

. A. The Sl ap Cha ud oin argue s th a t he is ent itl e d to qua lif ie d immunit

y in l ig ht o f t

his Court ’s de c isi on

in Ly on s v . Ci ty

of X e nia , 417 F.3d 5 6 5 (6 t h C ir. 2005). In Lyons , an opinion rec onsidered a fter the Supreme Court’s rulingin Brosseau , this Court gra nted qualified immunity

to a police of

fice r for alleg edly tackling a suspec t who was e ng ag ed in a verbal arg ument with another of fice r. Ac cording to Chaudoin, “[i] f i t was unclear whether a poli ce office r vi olated an established constitutional rig ht by ta c kli nga pe rs on

sim ply arguin g wi th a

no the r p oli c e of

fi c e r, the re wa s n o v iol a tio n o f a c le arl y established constitutional rig ht if an officer simply slaps an ang ry , cursing , disorderly suspect who is appare ntly

resisting arr est and try

ing to e scape .”-6-

Chaudoin’s argument fails for two rea sons. First, it misconstrues the fa cts, at lea st as viewed in light most favora

ble to Pigra

m. Pigram admitted that prior to beingput into the squad car , he wa s

“ ang ry” and “ c ur sin g .” Ho we ve r, he sp e c if ic a lly re fu te d th e c on te nti on

that he wa s “ re sis tin g arr e st” or “try ing to esca

pe.” Moreove r, any violent be havior in which Pigra m e ng ag ed inside the squad c ar, i.e. , bang ing his he ad ag ainst the g lass and attempting to kick out the rea r windows, should not be imp ute d to his prior

behavior outside the ca

r, whe n the alleg ed slap oc curr ed. Second, eve n though a

“slap” would appea

r t o involve less phy sical for ce tha n a “ta ckle,” under spe cific c ircumstance s, a slap may constitute a suffic iently

obvious c o n s t i t u t i onal violation under Brosseau and Lyons
. See Lyons , 4 17 F .3 d at 57 9. F or e xamp le , a

ta c kle mig ht l e g iti mate ly be us e d to su

bd ue an un ru ly su sp e c t, e sp e c ia lly if that su sp e c t ha d no t y e t be e n s e c ur e d in ha nd c uf fs , as wa s the ca se in Lyons
. Id . at 570. In contra st, a slap to the fa ce of a handc uffe d suspect – even
a verba lly unruly suspect – is not a rea sonable means of achie ving any thing mo re t h an p er haps further anta go n i z i ng or humiliating the suspe ct. Se e als o Ca ric o v . B e nto n, Ir e lan d &Sto v all , 68 Fe d. Appx. 632, 637 (6th C ir. 2003) (noting that the plaintiff “c an cle arly claim excessive for ce ag ainst [t he off

icer ] for the slap to the fa ce” ). Under Graham, this Court i s require d to e valuate the rea sonablene ss of Chaudoin’s use of forc e by perf orming a “c are ful balanc ing of the nature and quality of t he int rusion on the individual’s Four th Amendment intere sts ag ainst the counter vailing g overnme ntal interests at stake .” Graham , 4 90 U.S. at 396 (interna l quotation mar ks omitted). Although the “rig ht to make an arr est
. . . nece ssarily

car ries with it the rig ht to use some deg ree of phy sical coercion or threat there of to eff ect it,” the offic ers’ interest justifies only the amount of forc e that a rea sonable office r in the heat of the moment could have be lieved wa s neede d to effe ctuate the arr est.-7-

I n th e pr e se nt c a se , th e sla p c ann ot re a so na

bly be c on str

ue d a s a me ans of su bd uin g Pig ra

m,
e sp e c ia lly g ive n that Cha

ud oin ’s jus tif

ic a tio n f or the sla p w a s n ot t o p ro te c t hi mse lf , o the r o ff ic e rs , or the public, but rather wa s beca use Pigr am had a

“smart- ass mouth.” Moreove r, whe n Pigra m’s mother aske d Chaudoin why he had sla

pped her son, Chaudoin alleg edly replied that she was “ lucky he didn’t d o m o re than that,” whic h provides fur ther e vidence that the offic er’ s action ser ved no
rea sonable lawenfo rc em ent purpose. O n the fa cts as we must take them, there was simply no g ov e rnme nta l in ter est i n s la pp ingPig ra

m a ft e r h e ha d b e e n h and c uf fe d, no r c ou ld a

re a so na ble office r have thought ther e wa s. This Court’s case la w supports Pigr am ’s ri gh t n ot to be slapped g ratuitously . Specifica lly , case s in this circuit clear ly establish the rig ht of p eople who pose no safe ty risk to the p o l i ce to be fre e fr om gr atuitous violence duringarr est. See Phelps v. Coy, 286 F .3 d 2 95 , 3 02 (6 th C ir . 2 00 2) ; Adams v. M etiva, 31 F.3d 375, 386 (6th Cir. 1994) (use of forc e af ter
su sp e c t in c a

pa c itate d b y ma c e wo uld be e xce ssi ve a s a matte r o f l aw) ; Mc

Do we ll v . R oge rs, 863 F.2d 1302, 1307 (6th Cir. 1988) (blow with nig htstick to handcuff ed, unre sisting sus p ect would be g ratuitous and ther efor e unre asonable ). There fore , qualified immunit y is not available for

lack of a “c lear ly established” r ight. See Sauc ier , 533 U.S. at 200. I n summary , g e n

u in e is s u e s o f mater ial fac t exi st reg ardingwhether Chaudoin used excessive forc e in ar

resting Pigra

m, and whethe r that for ce w as ob j ec t i vely unrea sonable unde r the circ umstances. W e si mply cannot find that the facts are so one si ded in favor of Chaudoin that he is e nti tle d to qu a lif

ie d im mun ity

on the iss ue of

wh e ther a

c on sti tut ion a l vi olatio n o c c ur re d a s a result of the a lleg ed slap. Ac cordingl y , t h e dis trict court c orre ctly reje cted Chaudoin’s c laim of qualified immunity

. B. Ha nd c uf

fs-8-

I n Lyons , the Six th Circ uit noted that “[t] he Four th A mendment

. . . prohibits unduly tight handcuf fing in t h e co u rs e of an a rre st,” stating that this gene ral princ iple is “clea rly established” under Six th Circ uit law for purposes of qualified immunit y . Lyons , 417 F.3d at 575. Howeve r, the Court c a uti on e d th a t: [n] ot all alleg ations of tight ha ndcuff ing . . . amount to e x cessive forc e. I n order to rea ch a jury

on this claim, the plaintiff must alleg e some phy sical injury from the handcuf fing , and must show that office rs ig nored pla int iff’s c omplaints that the ha nd c uf fs we re too tig ht. Id . at 575-76. Although Cha

udoin, Frie rson, and Thompson deny that Pigra m made any

statements to them
c omp la ini nga

bo ut t he tig htn e ss o f t

he ha nd c uf fs , und e r t he “ lig ht mos t f

a vo ra ble ” sta nd ard we mus t examine Pig ram’s own statements to de termine if he even alleg ed makingstatements re g ardingthe ha nd c uf fs . I n his state me nt to I AB , Pig ra m sta te d that his rig ht wr ist wa s sw oll e n b e c a

us e Cha ud oin pu t th e ha

nd c uf fs on too tig htl y . H ow e ve r, he re po rt e d th a t h e di d no t in fo rm Cha ud oin of his discomfort bec ause “ he wouldn’t listen.” I n contra st, dur ing his de position, P igr am testified that he noticed that the c uffs we re too tig ht when Chaudoin first put them on and that he “think[ s]” he “tried t o ” s ay s o m et h i n g t o C h au d o i n ab o u t t h e t i gh t n es s o f t h e cu ff s b u t t h at “h e w o u l dn ’t l i s t en , ” a l t h o u gh Pigra m could not remembe r whe n he said something

. Under Lyons , a

pla int if f m us t dem on str a te that he c omp la ine d to the of fi c e rs and that hi s complaints wer e ignor ed. I n the absenc e of a c omplaint to the officer , no constitutional viol ation can be said to have occur

red. It is clear f

rom the record that Pigra

m failed to make a complaint inasmuch as he f elt that any

demands to the off

icer s to loosen the handcuf fs would have b ee n fu t i l e, twice
us ing the ph ra se “ he wo uld n’ t liste n. ” Th e re is nothin g in the re c or d to ind ic a te that Pig ra m e ve r t old-9-

Chaudoin that his han d cu ffs were too tig ht. There fore , unless there is evidence that there was a n “obvious phy sical problem cau s ed by the handc uffs,” i.e. , that Chaudoin was on notice that the ha nd c uf fs we re too tig ht, e ve n in

the a bs e nc e of an expr e ss co mpl a int fr om P ig ra

m, n o r e a so na

ble juror could f

ind that Chaudoin had notice of the cuff s being too tight. Lyons , 417 F.3d at 576. Her e, ther e is likewise no evide nce indica ting that ther e wa s an obvious phy sical problem
cause d by the handc uffs. Ms. Pigr am re ported in her I AB complaint that while she wa s visiti ng her son at the juvenile fa cility , she noticed that his rig ht wrist was “ swollen and puff ed upon fr om the ha nd c uf fs .” Whil e the re is e vid e nc e ind ic a tin g that Pig ra m c omp la ine d to the g ua

rd s at th e fa c ili ty that his “ wr ist s we re sw e lli ng and [that he ] n e e d[e d] to g o on the so uth sid e and lay do wn, ” thi s
e vid e nc e do e s n ot d e mon str a te that Pig ra m ha d a n o bv iou s p hy sic a l pr ob le m prior to the time that he wa s surrende red to the juve nile g uards. Thus, the c ourt ca nnot conclude that Pi gram had an obvious phy sical problem c aused by the cuf fs. B e c a us e the fa c ts a s a lle g e d b y the Pig ra ms d o n ot r ise to t

he le ve l of

un c onst it ut io na lly excessive forc e, we reve rse the district judg e’s de nial of summary judgme nt on the g ro u nds of qu a lif ie d im mun ity

a s to the e xce ssi ve -f

or c e ha nd c uf fi ngc la im. CO NC LU SION Ba sed on t he above discussion, we AF F IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of qu a lif ie d im mun ity for the a lleg ed slap a

nd RE VE RSE the denial of qualified immunity

for the a lleg ed excessively tight ha nd c uf fs . T he c a se is RE M AN DE D for f urther pr ocee dings c onsistent with thi s opinion.