T he H o no rable Lawrence P
. Zatkof f , U ni t ed Stat es D i st ri ct Jud ge f o r t he E ast ern D i st ri ct of M i chi gan, s i t t i ng * b y de si gnat i o n. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 10a0511n.06 No. 09-5764 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
WI L L I AM TOTMAN, Pla int if f– Ap pe lla nt,
v. L OUI SVI L L E J EFF ERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT and CHRI STOPHER HORNBACK, De fe nd ants –App e lle e s, and UN KN OWN DE F EN DA NT S, L ou isv ill e Metro Corre ctions Offic ers a nd Nurses in the Employ of L ouisvill e Jeffer son County Metro Go ve rnme nt, De fe nd ants
.

______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY
OPI NI ON

Before: CLAY and GILMA N, Circ uit Jud ges; and ZATK OF F , District Judge. * RONALD LEE GILMAN, Cir cuit Judge. After his arre st on a drugchar g e, Willi am Totman was br oug ht to a detention fa cility run by the L ouisvill e J ef

fer son County

Metro Gover nment (Metro) . Whil e g oing throug h the booki ng proce ss, Totman cre ated a disturbance and be c a me inv olv e d in

a ph y sic a l a lte rc a tio n w ithse ve ra l c or re c tio ns of

fi c e rs . He la te r b ro ug ht s uitNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-2- a g a ins t Me tr o, Of

fi c e r C hr ist op he r H or

nb a c k, a nd se ve ra l “ Un kn ow n D e fe nd ants ,” a lle g ingthe us e of excessive for ce a g ainst him in vi olation of hi s co nstitut ional rig hts. The district court g rante d summary ju d gm en t i n fa vor of the de fenda nts, concluding that Totman had fa iled to offer any evidenc e showing that the forc e used by Of fi ce r Hornba ck wa s excessive or that any custom or policy of Metro had harme d Totman. For the re asons set for

th below, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. BACKG ROUND A. Rec ord evidence 1. To tman’

s d e po sit ion te sti mony After being arres t ed for the possession of marijuana on the eveningof Mar ch 5, 2006, Totman and his g irlfriend, L eslie Hug hes, wer e broug ht to the “pa ssive-booking section” of a Metro detention fa cility

in L ouisvill e, Ke ntucky . The male and fe male detainees were se parated by a four

foot-hig h wall. These holding area s wer e adjacent to the phot og raph a nd fing erpr inting ar ea, w hich was be hind a counter

. Correc tions Office r Stavros Stachoulas c alled Totm an up to have his photog raph taken. As Totman passed the wom en’s se ction, he told Hug hes that he ha d alre ady called a lawy er. When Totman spoke to Hug hes, Off icer Stachoulas said: “I f y ou talk to y our girlfrie nd ag ain, I ’m g oing to put y ou both in the hole[,] and it don’t matter to me.” Totman replied: “ I s it my fault y ou can’ t g et a date? ” Af

ter makingthis comment, Totman turned ar ound and beg an to walk awa y . Totman could not reme mber duringhis deposition whether his photog raph ha d been taken at that point. He de sc ri be d w hat ha

pp e ne d n e xt as fo llo ws :No. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-3- Iturned a round. One [of the office rs] gra bbed one arm, a

nd one g rabbe d the other; and they kind of ran w it h me a little bit and bounced me on the floor on my head. And I ’m scre aming , beg g ing the m to stop
. S o m eb o d y throws a kne e in my

back. Somebody

is kicking me

. I ’m not se eing exactly who’s doing what. All I ’m doing is on the g round fa ce dow n fee ling e very thing, a nd I ’m scre aming and holleringand beg g ing them to quit. And eac h one of the m are individually g oing, “ Quit resisting.” Totman did not know the exact number of office rs involved, but he said ther e we re at least three or four, includingOffic ers Stachoula s and Hornba ck. When asked how he ended up on the floor, Totman testified at his deposition: “B y the two office rs taking my

arms and pret t y much pile-drivingme hea d first into the concr ete.” He then related what ha

ppened a fter he was on the f loor: Actually afte r I was on the g round, I

—Ican’ t rea lly

say what anyone other

than the—they was [sic] all t wi s t i n g an d . . . somebody threw a knee in my

back, a nd somebody was kicking me in the leg s. And one—I g uess the commande r or whoe ver comes c raw ling out of the offic e, and he y anks my head ba ck and Ma ces me . Then the y ov e re xten d my

a rm ba c kw ard s. Th e y

take me to t

he ho le , h and c uf

f m e to my fee t, roll me in o n [ t ] h e b ed . My head hits the be d. They ’re walking towards me. I ’m thi nk ing I ’m g e tti ng re a dy to die

. An d the y c on tin ue kic kin g me aro un d a

lit tle bit, y ou know, roug hing me up a little bit. Nothing major ba ck ther e. But I hear d a little voice say , “B e re al still.” And I just kind of acted like I was d ea d , y o u k n o w, like knocke d out or so me thi ngbe c a

us e Ikind of fel t like Iwa s r e a lly g e tti ngre a dy

to g e t hu rt wo rs e beca use no one c ould see what was fix ing to happen. I just—No one could see what wa s g oin g on

no w, y ou kn ow , o the r t

ha n th e [co rr e c tio ns ] of

fi c e rs . Totman was ha

ndcuff ed and ta ken to the single -ce ll holding are a, which he ref err ed to as the “hole.” He rec alled Offic ers Stachoulas and Peterson being the office rs who took him to the hole,

and he tho ug ht t

hat O ff ic e r H or nb a c k mi g ht h a ve e sc or

te d h im a s we ll. Of

fi c e r S ta c ho ula s a lle g e dlyNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-4- told Totman that St achoula s could co m e into the hole and “ do that” to Totman any time, and that Totman was powe rless to do any thing a bout it. I mmediately

afte r T otman was plac ed in the hole, two nur ses came in and put a c leansing solution i n his e y es to stop the burning from the spray . Totman said that he wa s then left handc uffe d in the hole for se vera l hours. When the office rs came bac k to the hole, one of them asked him: “Are y ou g oing to be have now ? ” Totman re sponded: “Ye s.” The of fice rs then re moved Totman’s handcuf fs and took him back out to the bookingare a. 2. Of fic e r Ho rnb ac k’

s d e po sit ion te sti mony Duri nghis de po sit ion , O ff ic e r H or nb a c k te sti fi e d c on c e rn ing the e ve nts of

the e ve nin g in qu e sti on a s f oll ow s: Q. Iwant to ask y ou about—kind of swit ch gea rs and ask y ou about the incident involving Willi am Totman, the re ason why we’ re he re toda

y and what y ou re c a ll a bo ut t hat in c ide nt? A. What I can remembe r about the i ncident with Mr. Tot man i s that him[ ,] and Idon’t know if it was his wife or his girlf riend, rig ht now I ’d have to look at the pa pe rw or k to se e if the y we re marr ie d o r n ot. At any rate , the y we re bo th arr ested at the same time and the y wer e a c ouple. Whil e they wer e in passive booking I

re member the m being g iven seve ral wa rning s to stop communicating with eac h other. Q. Who g a ve tho se wa rn ing s? A. Iknow I

did. Office r Stachoul[a]s gave them sever al warning s and I ’m not po sit ive bu t I

thi nk so me oth e r o ff

ic e rs may have sa id s ome thi ngtoo bu t I kn owme and

Of fi c e r S ta c ho ul[a ]s g a ve the m mu lti ple , mu lti ple wa rn ing s to sto p c omm

un ic a tin g and

tha t th a t w a s a g a ins t th e ru le s a nd that it is m a inl y for their safe ty
. . . . Any way , this c ontinued on, I don’t know howeve r long they wer e sitting out in the passi v e b o o k i ng are a and w e just continued to try and proc ess themNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-5- throug h and then r ight a s we were starting to have ser ious problems with Mr. To tma n h e wa s g e tti nghis pic tur e take n. Of fi c e r S ta c ho ul[a ]s w a s ta

kin g his picture a nd Mr. Totman wa s ref

using to fa ce the came ra and he kept wanting to try and talk to his g irlfriend or wife and Offic er Stac houl[ a]s kept telling him to st op. . . . Mr. Totman just refused to f ollow our instructions. He would not do what we asked him to do . . . .

. . . . So as Iwas standingthere at the live sca n machine O ffice r Stachoul[a]s was still having difficulty

with Totman following instruc tions. He finally said, y ou know this i s y o u r l ast war ning, you know, either

y ou follow our instructions or we a

re going to put y ou in the s ingle cell and you are g oing to, y ou know y our proc ess is g oing to be delay ed while we wor k with people that are g oing to c ooperate. Mr. Totman just refuse d. Even after that he re fused to listen to Offic er Sta c ho ul[a] s, so Of

fi c e r S ta c ho ul[a ]s sa id o ka y that’ s, y ou

are g oin g to the—we c all it the hole

. I t’s a single cell there on the booking floor so that we c an, y ou

kn ow , w e c an s til l ob se rv e wh a t you are do ing in the re bu t un til y ou de c ide y ou

are g oin g to c oo pe ra

te wi th u s, y ou

kn ow , th a t is g e ne ra lly wher e we put people that ar e beinguncooper ative. Offic er St achoul[a]s went to escor t him over to the ce ll and Mr. Totman, y ou know, ra ised his elbow up bef ore Stac houl[ a]s cou l d ev en, y ou know, do any thing. So Stachoul[a]s g rabbe d his arm in an esc ort hold and starte d walking toward the single cell. I was walking rig ht be hind the m a nd then Mr. To tma n c on tin ue d to be c omb a tiv e a t th a t po int wi th [O ]ff

ic e r S ta c ho ul[a ]s, trying to jer

k his a rm back a

way from Of fice r Stachoul[a]s s o Istepped around to his, I

believe it wa s his r ight side and I g rabbe d his r ight a rm to try and he lp Sta c ho ul[a ]s ke e p c on tr ol of him and to h e lp e sc or

t hi m to the sin g le c e ll. As Idid

that, you kn ow , h e ke pt je rk ing his arm s a nd sta rt e d k ic kin g his le g s tr y ingto k ic k u s and , y ou

kn ow , h e wa s jer

kin g aro un d g oo d e no ug h to wher e I actua lly lost ahold of him a

nd he was swing ing his a

rm around, you kn ow , tr y ing to hit us and thi ng s. So, a t that po int Ijus t st e pp e d in

c los e r t o him and Iput him in a vascular restra int hold and my intentions at that point was to put him on the ground so that we c ould ge t him handcuffe d and better control him. You know the re ason why we put them on the g round, it’sNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-6- a lw ay s s a f

e r o nth e g r o u n d

f o r e v e r y b o dy . Wh e ny o uar e s ta

n d in g u p th at still g ives people a

chanc e to throw punc hes and kic ks at y ou. So at th a t po int

we we nt t o th e g ro un d. I jus t kep t hi s u pp e r b od y se c ur e d in th at v as cular restra int hold and while Offic er Stac houl[ a]s and the other office rs g ot his hands put in handcuffs a nd while they

wer e doing that he wa s trying to kick a

nd stuff. I couldn’t see exactly what he was doing bec ause I had ahold of

his upper body

but Ibelieve he was still try ing to kick the o ff icer s and that is when the Ser g eant r an up and hit him with the OC [ p e p p e r ] s p r ay. At that point I was a lso hit wit h the OC spray once a g ain and so I just he ld on to him and until t hey

told me that his hands were secur ed in re straints and that w e c ou ld l e t hi m up. So af te r his arm s we re se c ur e d in the ha nd c uf fs I let g o of hi m and st ood up and the other officer s escor ted him back to the r ear secur ity are a to a single cell back there

. I can’ t r emember which one. Ididn’t g o back the re. I stay ed out in the passive booking are a bec ause I was c overe d in that OC spray , so Istay ed out there and wa shed up fr om that and kee p an ey e on the other

inmates that wer e out there

. Q. Did y ou have a

ny other c ontact with Wil liam Totman afte r he was taken bac k to t he sin g le c e ll? A. No, sir. Offic er H ornbac k testified that the for ce he used wa s in direct re sponse to the re sistance of Totman. He spe cifica lly

denied that he put his knee on Totm an’s ba ck while the latter wa s on the g round. When asked w hy he used f orce to beg in with, Office r Hornba ck re sponded: When Ifirst put him in the original escort hold he wa s attempting to swingat Off icer Stachoul[a] s and he pulled his ar m away and wa s jerking his arm. I don’t know if he was g oing to tur n ar o und and hit Stachoul[a] s or not. So, to keep a f ellow offic er fr om b e inga tta c ke d I

ste pp e d in

and he lpe d h im. Ac c or din g to O ff

ic e r H or nb a c k, the wh ole inc ide nt in the bo ok ing are a la ste d ab ou t 5 to1 0 s e c on ds , and it took place be hind the counter that s eparated the holding a rea from the photog raph a

nd fing erpr inting ar ea.No. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-7- 3. Additi onal w itnesses and evidence Hu g he s, To tma

n’ s g ir lf ri e nd , w a s a lso de po se d r e g ard ingth is inc ide nt. On the date in question, Hug hes wa s in the women’s sec tion of the booking a rea , and she he ard a

n office r ca ll for Totman to get h i s p h o t og raph taken. Hug hes obser ved Totman a

nd Offic er Stac houlas g et into a dis pu te , and sh e he ard To tma n say : “ I s it my fa

ult y ou c an’ t g e t a date ? ” Acco rdi ng to Hu g he s, Offic ers Stachoula s and Hornba ck then “ tackled” and “slammed” Totman. She testified: “Well, I hear d [Totm an] screa

m. Imean he was squea ling like a pig. Please ge t off me. Please g et off me

. Squ e a lin g Ime an it

se e me d li ke it— Ikn owit w a s th re e to f ive min ute s, bu t it seeme d li ke thi rt y min ute s. ” De sp ite To tma

n’ s p le a s f

or t he of fi c e rs to s top , H ug he s sa id “ the y ke pt s ay ingqu it resisting , quit resisting.” Much of Hug hes’s viewof the a ltercation was blocked b y t h e counter sepa rating the photogr aph and f

inge rprinting are a fr om the holding area wher e she w as sitting. She sawOffic ers Sta c ho ula s and

Ho rn ba c k g ra b T otm an by

the arm s a

nd take him to t he fl oo r, bu t w a s th e n una ble to s ee m o re t h an Of

fice r Hornba ck’s he ad and ne ck bec ause he was be nt over. Hug hes also saw “thre e to four of

fice rs just stompi ng .” She wa s not able to see if Offic er H ornbac k place d his knee on Totman’s bac k, nor did she see if the off icer s twisted Totman’s arms. Hug hes testified that, when she and Totman g ot out of jail a couple of hours later , Totman “looked really bad,” “was hunc hed over,” and “ha d a bruise ove r his ey e.” Aday or t wo after their arre st, Hug hes took photog raphs of Totman, which purpor

tedly showed “ wher e [Totman’s] rib was broke.” One of t h e nurses on duty the nig ht that Totman was ar rested, Joy ce H ill, gave a sworn statement as pa

rt of Metro’ s internal investigation i nto the incident. She re called tr eatingTotmanNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-8- by irrig ating his ey es after he had been s pray ed with mace or peppe r spra y . L ater , when Totman w as complaining of bac k pain, Nurse Hill ex amined him. She found no redne ss, br uising, or othe r sig ns
o f i n j u r y. Metro submitted Totman’s certified medical rec ords from his Marc h 6, 2006 visit t o Norton Suburban Hospital in L ouisvill e, Kentucky , which was the day afte r hi s arr est. He was treated for

a c h e s t w a ll c o n tu s io n , a c o n tu s io no nh is f o r e h e a d , an d

a th o r a c ic s tr a in

. T h e h o s p it a l s ta f f to o kxray s of Totman’s c hest, but found “no e vidence of a displac ed rib fr actur e.” Metro also provide d the district court with i t s De partmenta l Poli cy . This policy included
e xten siv e ins tr

uc tio ns on

the pr op e r u se of

fo rc e by c or re c tio ns of

fi c e rs . B. P r oc e dur al b ac kgr ound To t m anf i l e d s u i ta g a i n s tM e t r o , O f

f i c e r H o r nb a c k , an d

“ U n kn o w nD e f

e n d an t s L o u i s vil le Metro Corre ctions Offic ers a nd Nurses in the Employ

of L ouisvill e Jeffer son Metro Gove rnment.” I n his first amended c omplaint, Totman broug ht the following five c ounts: (1) Off icer Hornba ck and Unk no wn D efen dan ts us ed ex cess iv e for ce again st To tm an an d wi th hel d m edi cal att ent io n fr om him in violation of the Fourth a nd Eig hth Amendments of the United States Constitution; (2) Me tro failed to adequately

train and supe rvise Of

fice r Hornba ck and U nknown Def endants concer

ning the proper
us e of fo rc e and the ne e d for pr ov idi ng inm a te s with me dic a l atte nti on ; (3) Me tr o fa ile d to e xer c ise ordinary car e in hiring and re taining O ffice r Hornba ck and Unkn o wn Defenda nts; (4) Off

icer Ho rn ba c k a nd Un kn ow n D e fe nd ants c omm itt e d the state -l aw tor ts of a ssa ult , ou tr a g e ou s c on du c t, and intentional infliction of emoti onal di stress; and (5) a claim ag ainst all Defe ndants for punitiveNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-9- damag es. De spite twice amending his complaint, Totman never identified any

of the Unknow n De fe nd ants
. Metro and O ffice r Hornba ck moved f or summary

judgme nt on all of Totman’s claims. They argued that summary

judgme nt was appr opriate due to “t h e ab s ence of probative evidenc e.” Spe c if ic a lly , the y c on te nd e d that To tma n “ c ann ot c ome fo rw ard wi th e vid e nc e that is su ff ic ie nt i n te rm s o f b oth

qu anti ty and qu a lity to e sta bli shthe e le me nts of his c la ims .” Of fi c e r H or nb a c k a lso

ra ise d th e de fe ns e of

qu a lif ie d im mun ity , b ut o nly

a s it re la te d to To tma

n’ s st ate -l aw c la ims

. The district cour

t first considere d Totman’s cla ims unde r 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ag ainst Offic er Ho rn ba c k a nd the Un kn ow n D e fe nd ants . I t c on c lud e d th a t the F ourt h A me ndme nt d id n ot a

pp ly to Totman bec ause he was not in the custody of the arr esting office r at the time of the alleg ed use of excessive forc e. The court a lso concluded that the Eig hth A mendment did not apply beca use, at the time of the use of

forc e, Totm an had not y et been convicted of any offe nse. Ac cording ly , the cour t dismiss ed “T otman’s § 1983 claims ag ainst Hornbac k and Unknown D efe ndants predic ated on the Fo urth and Eig hth Amendments.” The court did not addre ss Totman’s claims re g ardingthe individual defenda

nts’ purported w ithholding of medic al ca re, but Totman ha s not pursued this issue
on a pp e a l. Next, the dist rict court considere d Metro’s liability under § 1983. The c ourt deter mined that “Totman ha s failed to identify a municipal policy

or custom that direc tly

cause d him injury ,” and that Totman had fa iled to present a ny evidenc e to support his claims that “Metro w as somehow ne g lige nt respe cting the provision of medica l attention for inmates” or that “Me tro is l i ab le base d on hiring or training .” Reg ardingthe hiring and re tention of Off icer Hornba ck, the c ourt noted that theNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-10- office r’s “ disciplinary

history may be fairly

char acte rized as dea ling with pre dominantly attitudinal problems” a

nd, althoug h his recor d was “ far from exemplary ,” ther e w as “nothing in it that evidences that hi s c on ti nu ed emp loy me nt m a de it ‘ hig hly

lik e ly ’ t hat he wo uld

us e e xce ssi ve fo rc e a g a ins t Totman, as is alleg ed her e.” Mor eover , said the cour t, “Tot m an has failed to show that a Me tro policy maker ma d e th e d e c is io nto r e ta in H o r nb a c k in f u rth e r an c e o f

M e tr o p o li c y . ” T h e c o u rt there fore dismiss ed Totman’s § 1983 c laims ag ainst Metro. Fin al l y , the cour

t found that Off

icer Hornba ck wa s entitled to qualified immunity under Kentucky law with re g ard to Totman’ s state-lawclaims. These claims wer e ther efor e dismissed. Prior to g ranting final judg ment to Metro and Of fice r Hornba ck, the district cour t allowed Totman to file a se cond ame nded complaint that adde d a re fer ence to the Four t ee n th Amendment in his § 1983 claims. Metro and Of fice r Hor n b ac k t hen re sponded by filing a second motion for summary judgme nt reg ardingthe new a dditi on to Totman’s complaint. They argued that Totman had not offe red a

ny evidenc e that Of

fice r Horn b ac k ’s conduct “ shocks the consc ience ” under the Four teenth Amendme nt, thus entitl ing the defe ndants to summary judgme nt . Totman replied:

“ Un de r t he g e ne ra lize d d

ue pr oc e ss c la

us e of the F ourt e e nth Am e ndme nt, a § 198 3 cla im is vi a ble if the beha

vior of the g overnme nt actor ‘ shocks the consc ience .’ A corr ections office r dribbling a n inmate’s hea d like a baske tball should shock the conscie nce.” (Citation omit ted.) Th e dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d that the F ourt e e nth Am e ndme nt d id a

pp ly to T otm an’ s c la im beca use he w as a pr etra il detainee at the time of the use of fo rc e, but concluded that Totman was unable to ra ise a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as to w hether Offic er H ornbac k’s conduc t shocked the c on sc ie nc e be c a

us e “ the re wa s in su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e to s up po rt a fi nd ingthat H or nb a c k a c te d inNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-11- ba d f a ith .” I n a dd iti on , T otm an “ a sse rt s n o n e w b a sis un de r the F ourt e e nth Am e ndme nt f

or lia bil ity on the par t of Metro.” Acc ording ly , the cour t dismi ssed Tot man’s § 1983 cla ims ag ainst Metro and Ho rn ba c k b a se d o n th e F ourt e e nth Am e ndme nt. Th e c ourt

did no t a dd re ss T otm an’ s F ourt e e nth Amendment cla ims ag ainst the Unknown De fenda nts. This ti mely

appea l followed. II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of review We reviewde novo a dis trict court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt. ACLU of K

y. v. G rayson Cou nty , 591 F.3d 837, 843 (6th Cir. 2010). Summary judgme nt is proper wher e no g enuine issue of mater ial fac t exi sts, and the moving pa rty is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. Fe d. R. Civ. P. 56(c)( 2). In considering a motion for summary judgme nt, w e must dra w all re asonable infere nces i n f a v o r o f t h e n o n m o v i n g p art y. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Z enith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The centr al issue is “whe ther the e vidence prese nts a suff icient disag ree ment to require submissi o n t o a jury

or whe ther it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a

matter of la

w.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). B. Argum ents of the parties Both pa rties identify

the following issues on appea l: (1) whether the district court a pplied the c or re c t con sti tut ion a l st and ard to T otm an’ s c la ims of

e xce ssi ve fo rc e , a

nd (2 ) w he the r M e tr o is liable for Totman’s injuries. Concerningthe first issue, Totman conte nds that “[t] he District Court failed to a pply the Four

th A mendment ‘objec tive rea sonablene ss’ standard, but r ather the fa r more
oner o u s F o u

r te e nth A me ndment ‘shocks the c onscienc e’ standa rd.” Totman a

rg ues in the alter

native that, i f t he F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt d oe s a

pp ly , the n the Ei g hth

Am e ndme nt s tand ard

a pp lic a ble toNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-12- convicted pr isoners should be adopte d “rather than the ‘shocks the c onscienc e’ te st ge nera lly used to analy ze substantive due proc ess claims.” And ac cordingto Totman, the evidenc e ra ises a g enuine iss ue of ma te ri a l f

a c t a s to wh e the r O ff

ic e r H or nb a c k’ s a c tio ns “ we re no t a g oo d f a itheffo rt to restore discipline, but were undertaken solely to cause harm.” Metro and Offic er Hornba ck respond to T otman’s arguments on the first issue by asser ting that his claims “implicate only the Four teenth Amendme n t ” an d n ot “the F ourth Amendment’s ‘objec tive rea sonablene ss’ test.” The y ag ree with Totman that the issue o f wh i ch constitutional sta nd ard a pp lie s to To tma

n’ s c la ims of

e xce ssi ve fo rc e is f

a ir ly pr e se nte d b y

thi s c a se : “ I nmate Totma n n ote s th a t th is c ourt

ha s n ot d ir e c tly

ans we re d th e qu e sti on

of wh e the r a

[F ourt h Amendment] seizure cea ses when the arr ested individ u al h as bee n turned ove r to an off icial in a detention fa cility , and this a ppeal seeks the answe r.” And as to Totman’s “ alternative argument that the District C ourt, in its Fourtee nth Amendment ana ly sis, should have applied a standard e quivalent to t he Ei g hth Am e ndme nt s tand ard ,” Me tr o a nd Of fi cer Ho rn ba c k c on te nd

that th is a

rgume nt “ is irrele vant bec ause the District Court[ ] i n fac t a pplied the same Eig hth Amendment standar d which I nmate Totman see ks.” The pa rties also disag ree as to whethe r Totman has r aised a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t
c on c e rn ingMe tr o’ s p ote nti a l li a bil ity fo r h is i nju

ri e s. To tma

n a rgue s th a t Me tr o w a s d e lib e rate ly indiffer ent to his right to be fre e from excessive forc e throug h its “neg lige nt hiring, supe rvision, and rete ntion of Offic er Hornbac k,” par ticularly “af ter his re peate d inmate attac ks.” Metro r esponds that “Totman ha s not identified any custom or policy

of Metro Government which could subject [Metro] to liabilit y .” I t contends that “no r easona ble policy

maker could have conclude d fr om [ Offic erNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-13- Hornba ck’s disci p li n a

r y] i n f r a c ti o n s r e c o r d e d that it was ‘plainly obvious’ that Offic er H ornbac k was likely to violate inmate[s’] constitutional rights.” To tma n d oe s n ot a dd

re ss in his br ie f the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt o n h is state-law claims, claims of withholding o f m edica l treatment, a nd claims ag ainst the Unknown Def endants. He has there fore waived these claims on appea l. See Ah le rs v . S c he bil , 188 F.3d 365, 374 (6th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a c o u rt m ay

c o n s id e r an y c la im s n o t a d dr e s s e d

in ana p p e ll a n t’ s brief to be waived) . Offic er H ornbac k in turn has not raised the issue o f qualified immunity on appea l; there fore , this defe nse is deeme d waived. See Thaddeus-X v. Blatter , 175 F.3d 378, 403 n.18 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding t hat a qualified-immunity defe nse i s deeme d waived if it is “not presented to this court in the initi al brief s on appea l”). C. Of

fi cerHornback’s liab ility Section 1983 provides a civil e nforc ement mecha nism for inmates who suffe r constitutional injuries at the hands of

“[a]ny person a cting under c olor of state la w.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Totman contends that Of

fice r Hornba ck, in his capa city as a Me tro corr ections office r, used e x cessive f orce
a g a ins t T otm an in

vio la tio n o f t

he la tte r’ s con sti tut ion a l r ig hts un de r t he F ourt h A me ndme nt o r, in the alter native, the F ourtee nth Amendment. At the time of oral a

rg ument, this circuit had not y et deter mined the exact point at which a F ourt h Am e ndme nt “ se izur e ” e nd e d a nd “ pr e tr ia l de te nti on ” be g an in the e xce ssi ve -f

or c e c on te xt. Such a dete rmination is significa nt beca use diffe rent c onstitut ional amendments a pply depending
on ho w o ne c ha

ra c te ri zes the status of a pe rs on in o ff ic ia l c us tod

y —w he the r t

hat pe rs on

is h e ld pursuant to a “ seizure,” a “dete ntion,” or a “ sentenc e.” Phelps v. Coy , 286 F.3d 295, 299 (6th Cir.No. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-14- 20 02 ) ( “ Th e qu e sti on

of wh ic h ame ndme nt s up pli e s [a § 1 98 3 p la int if

f’s ] ri g hts is n ot m e re ly
aca demic, for

the standar ds of l iability vary signific antly acc ording to which amendme nt applies.”). Both pa rties there fore asked the court to decide which constit utional standard a pplied to Totman’s claim of e x cessive f

orce during his booking proc ess. Since ora l argument, this court has dec ided the leg al issue. I n Aldini v. Johnson , Nos. 09- 31 83 , 0 9- 32 58 , _

_ F .3 d _ _, 20 10 WL25 73 46 7 ( 6th Cir . Jun e 29 , 2 01 0) , th e c ourt ru led th a t a defe ndant ar

rested w ithout a warr ant is p rotec ted from e x cessive f orce by the Four th Amendment until his or her

probable -ca

use hea ring

. Id. a t *8 (h old ing that “ the div idi ng lin e be tw e e n the F ourt h and F ourtee nth Amendment zones of protec tion at the probable -ca use hear ing” ). The c ircumstance s of this case —specific ally , Totman’s citation and arr est summary repor t—demonstrate that he was
arr e ste d w ith ou t a

wa rr ant. We wi ll accor din g ly ana ly ze T otm an’ s c la im und e r t he F ourt h Amendment excessive- forc e standa rd. “The Four

th Amendment prohibits the use of e x cessive force by arr esting and investig ating office rs.” Sm oa k

v . H all , 460 F.3d 768, 783 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Under the Fo u rt h Amendment standard, c ourts must determine whe ther a particula r use of forc e is rea sonable ba sed on “the perspe ctive of a

rea sonable off

icer on the sce ne, rather than w ith the 20/20 v i s i o n of hindsight.” Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). This r ea s o n ab l en ess i nquiry “is an objec tive one: the question is whether

the offic ers’ actions ar e ‘objec tively rea sonable’ in lig ht of the fa cts and circ umstances confr onting them, without r eg ard to the ir underly ing intent or motivation.” Id. at 367. I n evaluating the rea sonablene ss of t he force used, courts mus t examine “the se verity of the
c ri me a t is su e , w he the r t

he su sp e c t po se s an imme diate thr e a t to th e sa fe ty of the of fi c e rs or oth e rs ,No. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-15- and whe ther he i s actively resisting arr est or attempting to evade arr est by flig ht.” Da rra h v . Ci ty of Oa k Pa rk, 2 5 5 F
. 3 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 7 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c i t a t i o n s an d qu o t a t i o n m ar k s o m i tte d) . “ Th is standard c ontains a built-in measure of def ere nce to the of

fice r’s o n -t h e- s p o t judgme nt about the level of f orce nece ssary

in light of the c ircumstance s of the particula r ca se.” Burchett v. Kiefe r , 310 F.3d 937, 944 ( 6th Cir. 2002). During h i s d ep osition, Totm an testified that he was involved in two distinct phy sical alterc ations with Metro cor rec tions officer s. The first took plac e in the booking are a, whe re O ffice rs Stachoulas and H ornbac k took him to the floor. Offic er Hornbac k testified t hat Tot man was be ing disruptive and re fusing to f ollow instruc tions concer

ning the booking pr ocess. Of fice rs Stachoulas and Hor nback a ccor dingly

used forc e in or der to g ain compliance

. Significa ntly , Totman does not dispute that he wa s re fu sing to follow the of fice rs’ c ommands or eve n that he phy sically resisted their ef forts to take him to the sing le ce ll. He thus has not ref uted Officer

Hornba ck’s testimony

that
so me fo rc e wa s n e e de d to e ng e nd e r T otm an’ s c omp lia nc e wi th t he of fi c e rs ’ i ns tr

uc tio ns . The sole issue, ther efor e, is whethe r the for ce use d by Offic er H o rn b ack w as unconstitutionally excessive. We are not a sk e d to det e rm ine wh e the r t he c umu la tiv e fo rc e a lle g e dly
us ed b y al l of the involved off icer s was excessive be cause only Officer Hornbac k wa s su e d a s a
name d d e fe nd ant. To tm a n w a s u n a b le to specific ally

identify Offic er H ornbac k as one of those who wa s kicking him or who drove a

knee into his bac k. He c oncede d that he did not know which of fice rs wer e purportedly

beatinghim once he was on the floor and, after a car eful review of the re cord, w e have found no evide nce indicating that Of fice r Hornba ck himself kicke d or beat Totman. Offic erNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-16- Hornba ck, in contra st, testified unequivoca lly that he did not put his knee on Totman’s back and that he did nothing mor e than maintain a vascula r-r estraint hold on Totman u n t i l t h e latter was handcuf fed. The incident report in fac t states t hat Officer Stachoulas was the one who put his knee on Totman’s bac k, but Totman did not name Off icer Stachoulas as a

defe ndant. And despite be ing g iven two opportunities to amend his co m p l aint, Totman failed to a dd any of the other

office rs involved in this i ncident as de fenda nts in the case. As the party responding to a prope rly supported motion for summary judgme nt, Totman bore the burden to “set out specif ic fa cts showing a g enuine issue f or trial.” See Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(e) (2). But Totman of

fer ed no evidence to refute O ffice r Hornba ck’s testimony that Hornba ck did not kick, beat, o r kn e e T o tm anw h il e th e tw o o f th e m w e r e in

th e b o o k in g ar e a . O u r

d is s e n ti n g c o ll eag ue sug g ests that this deficienc y is remedied by

Totman’s sec ond amende d complaint, which alleg es that Totman suffe red e x tensive injuries bec ause of his treatment by Offic er Hornbac k. We rec og nize that a “ve rified c omplaint . . . car ries the same weig ht as would an affidavit for the purposes of summary judgme nt.” See E l Bey v . Roop , 530 F.3d 407, 414 (6th Cir. 2008)

. But Totman’ s second amended complaint is not in fa ct v er ified by Totman (althoug h it is t itled a “ve rified” complaint). Neve rtheless, the f

irst amended c omplaint contains the sam e fac tual alleg ations as the sec ond amende d complaint and includes a verif ication. The only

differ ence betwee n the first and se cond

a me nd e d c omp la int s is tha t th e se c on d ame nd e d c omp la int a dd e d c la ims un de r t

he F ourt e e nth Amendment. We there fore will consider whe ther the s tatements in Totman’s first amended complaint raise a g enuine issue of mater ial fac t. (Totman’s orig inal complaint, althoug h verifie d, did not contain specific fac ts to support his claims.)No. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-17- To constitute evidenc e sufficient to support or oppose a motion for summary

judgme nt, an aff idavit “must be made on persona l knowledg e, set out facts that would be a dmissibl e in evidenc e, and s h o w t h at t h e aff

iant is competent to testify on the matters state d.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1). T o t m an v er i fi es t h at h i s fi rs t am en d edco mp l ai n t“i s t ru e a n d co rr ec tt o t h e b es to f [ h i s ] kn o wl ed ge and belief

,” which indica

tes that the a l l ega t i o n s of the c omplaint go be y ond Totman’s per sonal knowl e d g e an d e xte n d to matt e r s w it h in T o tm an ’ s b e li e f

. H is b e li e f

s , h o w e v e r , d o n o t me et the evidentiar y standard set forth in Rule 56(e )(1) of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure. See id. ; see also Alpert v. United States , 481 F.3d 404, 409 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (holding that the aff iant’s “state ment . . . based upon his ‘be lief’ . . . did not demonstrate the personal knowledg e required by Fe d. R. Civ. P. 56(e)” ). To tma n’ s d e po sit ion

te sti mony

c lari fi e d w hic h p or

tio ns of the c omp la int

we re wi thi n Totman’s kno w le d g e an d w h ic h p o rti o n s w e r e me r e ly h is b e li e f s . H e te s ti f

ie d th a t, a lt

h o u g h he knew that Of

fice r Hornback took him to the ground in the booki ng are a, he did not know who beat hi m whil e he wa s d ow n. To tma n’ s a lle g a tio n in

his c omp la int

that O ff ic e r H or nb a c k b e a t hi m is there fore nothing more than spec ulation, and spec ulation is not admiss ible evidenc e. See Fed. R. Evid. 602 (“A w itness ma y not te stify to a matter unless evidenc e is introduced suf ficient to support a finding that the witness has pe rsonal knowledg e of the matter.” ). Mo re ov e r, wh e the r To tma n ide nti fi e d Of

fi c e r H or nb a c k a s o ne of

the of fi c e rs wh o b e a t hi m is a dispositive issue in this case , despite t he dis sent’s arg uments to the contrary

. Totman has sued only Offic er Hornbac k for the alleg ed beating. But Office r Hornback has sworn that he did not beat Totman, and Totman’ s claim t h at h e was be aten by unknown offic ers doe s not contradict Of fice rNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-18- Hornba ck’s state ment beca use the re cord c ontains no statements from the othe r off icer s in the booking a rea on the nig ht in question deny ing that they wer e involved in the alter cation. Given the po ssi bil ity

that one or mor e of the m beat Totm an, the re is no fa c tua l disp ute in the re c or d th a t w ou ld prec lude a g rant of summar y judgme nt in favor of

Offic er H ornbac k. The dissent also notes To t m an ’s purported a lleg ation “that he only verba lly resisted the office rs prior to their t ac k ling him.” B ut we ar e unable to locate a ny statement in Totman’s complaint that supports this contention. Although Totman a lleg es t hat he “ pleade d with the office rs to stop,” he does not say that he wa s comply ing w ith t h e officer s’ commands, e ither ver bally or phy sically . Acc ording ly , Totman’s verified complaint does not raise a g enuine issue of materia l fac t
conce rning the first alleg ed instance of for ce a g ainst him. Th e se c on d inst anc e of fo rc e that T otm an d e sc ri be s p ur po rt e dly oc c ur re d in the sin g le c e ll in t h e re ar s ec u ri ty

are a. At that point, Totman was ha ndcuff ed. Totman provide d the following te sti mony duri nghis de po sit ion

a bo ut w hic h o ff

ic e rs too k h im t o th e c e ll: Q. Ok ay . D id O ff

ic e r H or nb a c k e sc or

t y ou to t he sin g le c e ll? A. Ibelieve he was one of them. Ther e wa s [s ic] a fe w o f t h em. Him , the—I can’ t think of that guy ’s name f or nothing . Stav . . . Q
. St a v r o s [S ta c h o u la s ]? A. Stavr os . Q. Stavr os ? A. Stavr os . Q
. Okay , So it w a s O f f ic e r H o r nb a c k an d O f

f ic e r St a v r o s [S ta c h o u la s ] th a t took y ou ba c k to the sin g le c e ll?No. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-19- A. And Peterson. Q. Who? A. Peterson. Q
. O k ay. A. And I believe the—that the other—the one that Mace d me, I believe he was like in the back—ba ck of the m. You know, there was [sic] l ike three or four of them that put me in there

. To tma n w a s thus no t ent ir e ly c e rt a in t hat O ff ic e r H or nb a c k w a s amon g the of

fi c e rs wh o to ok

him to the single cell. I n any event, he does not contend that the officers used excessive forc e while they
wer e in the proc ess of e scorting him. Totman was a lso unable to descr ibe with particula rity what to o k p l ac e o n ce he was ther e. He sa id that “they ” continued to “roug h[] [hi m] up a little bit,” but then conce ded that he w as not actua lly punched w hile in the rea r sec urity ar ea. T otman further testified that the off

icer s “continue[d] kicking me a round a lit tle bit” and that he “just kind of pl ay ed opossum .” He was ly ing face do wn and ther e fo re c ou ld n ot t e ll “ wh o w a s d oin g wh a t.” To tma n w a s th e n le ft

in t he c e ll ha nd c uf fe d f or tw o o r t hr e e ho ur s. Of fi c e r H or nb a c k te sti fi e d at hi s d e po sit ion that he did no t esc or t Totm an to the re ar s e c ur ity
are a and that he did not go ba ck to that ar ea at all during Totman’s detention in the sing le ce ll. Given Totman’s lac k of ce rtainty conce rning whether

Offic er H ornbac k was one of the off icer s who took him to t he re ar s e c ur ity

are a , a nd his tot a l ina

bil ity to ide nti fy wh ic h of

fi c e rs purp or

te dly kic ke d h im once he was ther e, Totman ha s failed to ra ise a g enuine issue of fact co n ce rn i n g whether Offic er Ho rn ba c k u se d e xce ssi ve fo rc e a g a ins t Totm an whi le the la tte r wa s in th e sin g le c e ll. An d w e a g a inNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-20- no te that, d e sp ite havin g tw o o pp ort un ities to a me nd the c omp la int , T otm an f a ile d to name a s a de fe nd ant a

ny ind ivi du a l off

ic e r oth e r tha

n Of fi c e r Ho rn

ba c k. To tma

n’ s unc e rt a int

y c ann ot c re a te a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t where Offic er Hornba ck flatly denies even being prese nt in the r ear
secur ity are a, much less using any forc e aga inst Totman while t here

. See, e .g. , Schlueter v. S. Ene rgy Homes, I nc. , 2 5 2 F
. A p p ’ x 7 , 9

- 1 0 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a ta n “ e q u i v o c a l an d c o n c l u s o r

y” statement in an a ffidavit provide d to oppose summary judgme nt c annot g ive rise to a g enuine issue of mater ial fac t). I n sum, Totman has not raised a g enuine issue of materia l fac t reg ardingOffic er H ornbac k’s alleg ed use of

excessive forc e in either

the booking are a or the rea r secur ity are a. The district court’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt to Office r Hornback on Totman’s ex cessive- forc e claim was ther efor e appropr iate due to Totman’ s lack of pr oof. D. Met ro’s liability Totman arg

ues that M et ro fa i l edt o ex er ci s e o rd i n ary ca re i nh i ri n g, s u

p er v i s i n g, an d

re t ai n i ng of fi c e rs “ su c h a s” Of

fi c e r H or nb a c k. He pr ov ide s a

su bs tanti ve argume nt, ho we ve r, c on c e rn ingon ly Metro’s de cision to retain Of fice r Hornba ck. Totman’s a rg um en t s ab o ut other off icer s, about Metro’s de cision to hire Officer Hornba ck, and about M etro’s purported failure to super vise Off icer Hornba ck ar e ther efor e dee med waive d. Se e Sp irk o v . M itc he ll , 368 F.3d 603, 612 (6th Cir. 2004) (“It is a settled appellate rule that issues adve rted to i n a per functory manner , unacc ompanied by some eff ort at deve loped ar g umentation, are deeme d waived.” (citation and inter nal quot ation marks omitted)).No. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-21- Where a plaintiff see ks to hold a municipality liable for ne g lige ntl y re t ai n ing a particula r
e mpl oy e e , th e pla int if

f m us t pr ov e that th e deci si on to r e ta in t he e mpl oy e e “ re fl e c ts d e lib e rate indiffer ence to the risk that a viol ation of a pa rticular c onstitut ional or statutory rig ht will follow the decision.” Bd

. o f Co un ty Com m’ rs v . B ro wn , 5 20 U. S. 3 97 , 4 11 (19 97 ). A f ind ingof c ulp a bil ity
c ann ot d e pe nd

on the g e ne ra l pr ob a

bil ity that any of fice r i na de qu a te ly

sc re e ne d w ill inf

lic t so me inj ur y . “ Ra the r, it mus t depend on a fi nd ingthat thi

s office r wa s highly

likely to inflict the particular injury suffe red by the plaintiff.” Id. at 412 (empha ses in or igina l). And “[w]here, as her e,
a mun ic ipa lity ’s lia

bil ity is a lle g e d o n th e ba sis of the un c on sti tut ion a l ac tio ns of its e mpl oy e e [], it is nece ssary

to show that the employ ee[] i n fl i ct ed a constituti onal har m.” Ewolski v. City of Brunswick , 287 F.3d 492, 516 ( 6th Cir. 2002). Totman’s neg lige nt-rete ntion claim aga i n s t Metro is premised on his claim that Of fice r Hornba ck violated Totman’ s constitutional r i gh t t o b e free fr om excessive forc e. B ut we have conclude d that Totman failed to r aise a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t as to whether Offic er H ornbac k used excessive for ce a g ainst him. Bec ause Totman’ s claim ag ainst Hornbac k fails, he ha s not
e sta bli sh e d a c on sti tut ion a l vi olatio n o n w hic h to ba se a c la im o f m

un ic ipa l li a

bil ity . T otm an ’s c la im ag ainst Metro is acc ording ly without merit. See id. III . C ON CL USI ON For all of the re asons set for

th above, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.No. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-22- CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge, dissenting. Totm an h as ra ised a g enuine issue of materia l fac t
conce rning whether

Offic er H ornbac k subjected Totman to e x cessive forc e in the booking are a of Metro, but he ha s not raised a g enuine issue of m ater ial fac t conce rning whether Metro wa s neg lige nt in its decision to retain Off icer Hornba ck. I

would there fore vacat e t h e d i s t ri ct cour t’s g rant of summary judgme nt as to Offic er H ornbac k and re mand the ca se to the district court. Whi le g o in g thr o u g h th e b o o k in g p r o c e s s a t M e tr o , T o tm anw a s inv o lv e d in a p hy sical

a lte rc a tio n w ithse ve ra l c or re c tio ns of

fi c e rs . G ive n th e tim ingof the a lte rc a tio n, To tma

n’ s c la ims implicate the F ourth Amendment. See Aldini v. Johnson , 609 F.3d 858, 860 ( 6th Cir. 2010). The

ma jori ty c on c lud e s th a t T otm an’ s c la ims wo uld fa il und e r e ve n th e mor e pr ote c tiv e F ourt h A m e n d m e n ts t an d ar d

r e qu i r e d b y Aldini . Howeve r, I

woul d find that there are disputed issues of

ma te ri a l f a c t. The fa cts and evidence indicating that Totman’s claim ag ainst Offic er H ornbac k should be permitted to proce ed ar e as f ollows: Totman admitte d t h at he spoke to his girlfr iend during the booking pr ocess a

nd responde d to Offic er St achoula s’ order not to speak to his g irlfriend by saying “I s it my fault y ou can’ t ge t a date?” (Dist. Ct . R.E. 39 Ex . 7 at 12). Acc ording to T otman, he turne d to w a lk a wa y , and Of fi c e rs Sta c ho ula s and Ho rn ba c k ph y sic a lly a tta c ke d h im. Th e of fi c e rs c la im that Totman was kicking , punching , and phy sically resisting . Howeve r, eve n the offic ers a dmit that they took Totman to the g round, put him in a vascular restra int hold, handcuf

fed him, and spra

y ed his e y e s w ithpe pp e r s pr ay . T otm an h a s a lle g e d in a ve ri fi e d c omp la int

that he “ su sta ine d a

ri b fra cture and lig ament dama g e in both arms as a result of the beatingperpe trated by Offic er H ornbac kNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

T h e m a jo rity a rg u e s tha t th e a lleg a tio n s in the v e rified c o m p la int d o n o t m e e t th e e v id e n tiar y s ta n d a rd s e t f o rth 1 in F e d e ra l R u le o f C ivil P ro c e d u re 5 6 (e )( 1 ) b e c a u se the y e x te n d b e yo n d T o tm a n ’s p e rs o n a l kn o w le d g e to m a tter s w ithin T ot man’ s bel i ef

. H owever , t he al l ega t i ons conc er ni ng t he ext ent of T otm an ’ s inj ur i es , as wel l as t he al l ega t i ons t hat O f f i ce r H or n bac k wa s on e of t h e t wo of f i ce r s wh o g r abbe d T ot man an d t h r ew h i m t o t h e g r ou n d, ar e cl ea r l y m at t ers wi t hi n T ot man’ s per s onal kn owl edge. T hu s , at l eas t on t hes e i s s ues , t he ve r i f i ed com pl ai nt “c ar r i es t he s ame wei gh t as woul d an a f

f i davi t f or pur po s es of

s ummary j udgment

. ” See El Bey v . Roop , 53 0 F.3d 40 7 , 41 4 (6t h C i r. 20 0 8 ). T h e m a jo rity c o n te n d s tha t T o tm a n m a k e s n o a lleg a tio n tha t he o n ly ve rb a lly re siste d the o ff ic e rs p rio r to the ir 2 t ack l i ng hi m. H owever , wh i l e T ot man do es not s ay t he exa ct words “ I onl y ver bal l y r es i s t ed, ” h i s des cr i pt i on of wh at t r ans pi r ed i n t he mo ment s bef ore t he al t er cat i on cl ear l y des cr i be onl y ver bal r es i s t anc e. Accordi ng t o T ot man: “ [ O f f i cer Stavros] t el l s m e, ‘I f

you t al k to y o ur gi rl f

ri end a gai n, I’ m go i ng to p ut you b o t h in t he ho l e; i t do n’ t m at t er t o m e. ’ A nd I s ai d, ‘ I s i t my f

aul t y ou ca n’ t ge t a dat e?’ A nd I t ur ned t o wal k a way . And t hat ’ s wh en hi m and H orn back at t ack ed m e .” (D ist. C t. R .E . 3 9 E x . 7 a t 1 2 ). -23- and the oth e r of

fi c e rs [an d tha t he] is cur

re ntl y sc he du le d to hav e surg e ry pe rf or me d on both

arm s as a dire ct re sult of this assault.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 8). 1 The officer s, including Office r Hornback, were allowed to use a rea sonable amount of forc e to c omp e l T otm a

n to c omp ly

wi th t he bo ok ingpr oc e ss. Ho we ve r, To tma n’ s a lle g a tio ns in h is
c omp la int tha t he su ff e re d e xten siv e inj ur ie s and his c on te nti on duri ng his de po sit ion that he on ly verba lly resisted the of

fice rs prior to their ta ckling him t o t he floor c reate questions as to whethe r the a mo u n t o f f

o r c e th e o f

f ic e r s u s e d in r e s p o n s e to T o tm an ’ s a d mi tt e d ly s n id e comment wa s excessive. Be cause this Court m ust credit Totman’s alleg ations on this a ppeal, ther e ar e disputed 2 qu e sti on s o f m a te ri a l f

a c t a s to wh e the r the of

fi c e rs us e d e xce ssi ve fo rc e un de r t he c ir c ums tanc e s. Fur thermore , Totman has pre sented suff icient alleg ations that Offic er Ho rnbac k was per s onally

involved in the alleg ed constitutional violations to s ustain a cla im ag ainst Offic er Hornba ck. Totman specific ally identified Offic ers Stachoulas and Hornba ck as the first two offic ers who attac ked him, and they “[took] my

arms and pr et ty

much pile-[drove] me head f irst in the
concr ete.” (R.E. 39 Ex. 7 at 15). I n addition, T otman’s deposition testimony makes c lear

that, afte rNo. 09-5764

Tot ma n v . Lo uis v ill e J

e ffe rso n Co un ty

Me tro Go v ’t

e t al

.

-24- Offic er H ornbac k took Totman to the g round, Off i ce r Hornback wa s one of the of fice rs who continued to attac k him while he was on the g round. Co n tr ar y to th e ma

jo r it y ’ s c h ar a c te r iz a ti o n o f th e is s u e , th e d is p o s it iv e in qu ir y is not constraine d to the question of whethe r Totman could identify Offic er H ornbac k as the off icer who kicked him or drove a knee into his back after Totman was taken to the ground. Considering that Totman was f

ace down and thre e or four office rs wer e on top of him a nd inflicting phy sical injury up on him a t th e same tim e , it

wo uld have be e n im

po ssi ble fo r T otm an to id ent ify wi th s pe c if

ic ity which off

ic e r s e n g a g e d

in w h ic h p art o f

th e b e a ti n g . H o w e v e r , T o tm anh a s a ll e g e d th a t O ffice r Ho rn ba c k w a s o ne of

the of fi c e rs be a tin g him , a

nd Of fi c e r H or nb a c k h a d th e mot ive to p un ish To tma n f or his a lle g e d la c k o f c oo pe ratio n in re sp on se to the po lic e of fi c e rs ’ c omm and s. Thus , Totman has pre sented e vidence sufficie nt to survive summary judgme nt sugg esting that Offic er Hornba ck’s a ctions cause d, at least in pa rt, the extensive injuries that Totman suffe red. I n view of all of the c ircumstance s, Totman’s alleg ations provide ade quate c ircumstantial evidenc e that Offic er Hornba ck is one of the likely perpe trators of the alleg ed constitutional violations. B e c a us e the dis pu te d mate ri a l f a c ts a nd re le va nt c ir c ums tanti a l e vid e nc e are suf fi c ie nt t o pe rm it T otm an’ s c la im a gains t Off ic e r H or nb a c k to be pr e se nte d to the tr ie r o f f a c t, I re sp e c tf ull y dis se nt.