The Honor able John R

. Adams, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0259n.06 No. 09-1555 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

DANI ELJ OSEPH SOL OVY, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. CI TY OF U TI CA POL I CE O F F I CER GR EG OR

Y MO RA B I TO , b a dg e no . 15; CI TY OF UT I CA POL I CE SERGEANT J EROME CARROL L , badg e no. 873; C IT Y O F U T IC A , j o i n t l y an d s e v e r a l l y, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Appeal from the United States Di strict Court for the Ea stern District of Michig an

Be fore : BO GGS and NORRI S, Ci rcuit Judges; and A DAMS, District J udg e. *

BO GGS, Circuit J udg e. Da niel Solovy

broug ht an ac tion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleg ing that two members of the Utica police depar tment, Serg eant Jerome Carr oll and Offic er Gre g ory Morabito, violated his Four th Amendment rig ht to be fre e f ro m ex ce s sive forc e. Solovy claimed that Ser g eant Car rol l an d Of

fi cer Morabito applied e x cessive f orce when they

used ha nd c uf fs to pu ll him fr om his ve hic le and fo rc e him to the g ro un d, ig no re d h is c omp la int s th a t hi s handcuf fs wer e too tight, a

nd picked him up by the handcuf fs. The district c ourt g rante d summary judgme nt in favor

Serg eant Car

roll and Off

icer Morabito, conc luding that ther e wa s no evidenc e that Offic er Mor abito utiliz ed any forc e and that Serg eant Car roll’s use of f

orce was re asonable . OnNo. 09-1555

Sol ov y v. Mo ra bit o

- 2 - a pp e a l, S olo vy

c ha lle ng e s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt on ly ins of ar a s it pe rt a ins to S e rg e ant C arr oll

. Be cause there is a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as t o whether Serg eant Car

roll used excessive for ce, and bec ause Ser g eant Car roll is not entitl ed to qualified immunity wi t h re spect to that cla im, we

re ve rs e the or de r o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt t o Se rg e ant C arr oll

. I Sol ov y is a ty pe -1 dia be tic , w ho re lie s on an ins uli n pump t o f e e d a c on sta nt s tr e a m of

ins uli n into his body

. At around 8:00 pm on J une 29, 2006, Solovy ’s blood sug ar f ell to a dang erously

low level. Rec og nizi ng that his blood sugar was low, Solovy drove to a g as station w ith the intention of purc ha sin g fo od

. He re a c he d the g a s statio n, bu t be fo re he c ou ld purc ha se fo od , he su c c umb e d to confusi o nc a

u s e d b y h is lo w b lo o d

s u g ar . T h e la s t t

h in g So lo v y

r e me mb e r s b e f

o r e h is e n c ounter with the police is sitting in his car in the pa rking lot of the g as station. Thoug h he has no r ecollec tion of doing so, Solovy ap p ar entl y

drove his ca

r fr om the g as statio n to the int e rs e c tio n o f Aub ur n Ro a d a nd Ca ss Avenu e . A t 10 :12 pm, Se rg e ant C arr oll dis c ov e re d Solo vy ’s ve hic le int e rf e ri ng wi th tr a ff

ic a t th a t in te rs e c tio n. Sol ov y wa s unc on sc iou s in the driv er’s se a t. S e rg e ant C arr oll ta pp e d o n th e wi nd owand awo ke Sol ov y , w ho , a c c or din g to Se rg e ant C arr oll , “ a

pp e are d c on fu se d, and a lso int oxic a te d. ” At aro un d th is t ime , O ff ic e r M or a bit o

arr ived on the sce n e, re s p o n d i ng to reports of “ a man in tra ffic slumped ove r the whe el.” Of fice r Morabito found Serg eant Car roll attempting to spea

k to Solovy , who was still in his vehicle. At this point , the ac counts of what transpired diverg e. Acc ording to Solovy , the offic er w ho knocked on his window a sked him to open the ca r door. Solovy unlatched the door a nd the offic er opened it. Solovy

told the office r that he ne eded f ood, but said nothing e lse. The of fice r re ache dNo. 09-1555

Sol ov y v. Mo ra bit o

Acc ording to Solovy , this condition pre vents him f rom “taking [hi s] ar

m f rom the fr ont of 1 [hi s] body and g etting [i t] behind [hi s] body more than just to the side of [hi s] body .” R. 24, Ex. C at 70. - 3 - into Sol ovy ’s vehicle and handc uffe d Solovy ’s right hand. Using the ot her end of t he handc uffs, the office r then “ ripped [Solovy ] out of the c ar” and for ced him “onto the g round, the ceme nt.” Once Sol ov y wa s f a c e do wn on the g ro un d, the of

fi c e r b e g an to ha

nd c uf f h is l e ft arm to h is rig ht a

rm , behind his back. Solovy

told the office r that he ha d a “ba d locked shoulder ,” but the offic er ig nored 1 him. Solovy complained that the handcuffs were too tig ht, but the office r ag ain ig nored him. One of the of fi c e rs (S olo vy

is uns ur e wh ic h) the n “ g ra bb e d th e [hand c uf

f] ch a in in the mid dle and jus t lifted [S olovy ] up” and “set [Solovy ] on the c urb.” This c aused Solovy “ag onizi ng pain and . . . [he] made a ll kinds of noise beca use it hurt so bad.” O nce on the cu rb , Solovy asked to have the ha nd c uf fs loo se ne d, bu t th e of

fi c e rs dis re g ard e d h is c omp la int s. Sol ov y re ma ine d h and c uf

fe d w hil e

awa iti ngthe arr iva l of EM S, tho ug h So lov y a c kn ow le dg e s th a t th e ha nd c uf fs we re re mov e d at so me point be fore he g ot into the ambulance. Solovy lost consciousness afte r g etting into the ambulance, b u tl at er aw o k e o nt h e a mb u l an ce gu rn ey t o fi n d h i s l ef twr i s tb l ee d i n g. Offic er Mor abito and Serg eant Car roll provide starkly

differ ent accounts of the e ncounter

. B oth of fi c e rs ma int a in t

hat th e y ne ve r h and cuff

ed So lov y . A c c or din g to S e rg e ant C arr oll , w hil e Solovy was still in his vehicle, O ffice r Mora bito approac hed the passeng er side of t he vehicle and, g lancing t h ro u gh the window, re cog nized Sol ovy ’s insulin pump. Officer Morabito informed Se rg e ant C arr oll of

thi s d isc ov e ry

and the tw o o ff

ic e rs de c ide d to c a ll EMS. Se rg e ant C arr oll a sse rt s that Solovy

“wa s combative be fore he wa s place d in the EMS vehicle, but with the assistance of theNo. 09-1555

Sol ov y v. Mo ra bit o

- 4 - EMTs and Of

fice r Mora ito he was plac ed o n a cot whe n the intrave nous injections were

commence d.” Acc ording to Office r Morabito, afte r he arr ived on the sce ne, he a pproac hed the dr iver’s side of Solovy ’s vehicle , to provide bac k-up for Serg eant Carroll. Serg eant Carroll asked Sol ovy to ge t

ou t of the ve hic le , “ the do or

wa s o pe ne d, ” and

Sol ov y vo lun tari ly g ot out of the c ar. At thi s p oin t, Offic er Mor abito shifted position relative to Solovy , though he rema ined on the driver’ s side of the vehicle. F rom his new vanta g e point, Offic er Mor abito saw Solovy ’s insulin pump. R ecog nizi ng that Solovy

might be ha

ving a diabetic e pisode, the off icer s su m m o n ed E M S

. I n the meantime, Offic er Mor abito inspected Solovy ’s vehicle and discove red “ a cup with lig ht br own fluid in it” that “[s] melled like intox icants.” N ever theless, the off

icer s did not investigate Solovy for dr inking a nd dr ivi ngor a dmi nis te r a

ny so br ie ty te sts

. EMS arrived on the scene at 10:22 pm. Solovy was not ha

ndcuff ed at the time EMS beg an tre a ti n g h im

. A c c o r d in g to th e a mb u la n c e r e p o rt, So lo v y

w a s “ c o n f

u s e d ” an d h a d e xtr e me ly

low blood suga

r. The report also indicated that Solovy had consume d alcohol, but Solovy denies e ver te lli ngthe pa

ra me dic s th is. Th e re po rt

did no t in dic a te that So lov y

wa s c omb a tiv e . T he pa

ra me dic who completed the repor

t testified that he “a

bsolutely ” would have noted if Solovy was c ombative, but the other pa

rame dic on the sce ne indicate d th at t h e re p o rtmight or mig ht not include such inf o rm at i on. The pa

rame dics administered a

dextrose soluti on throug h an I V drip, which r aised Sol ov y ’s blo od

su g ar t o a

sa fe le ve l. S olo vy

de c lin e d f

ur the r c are or

tr ans po rt to t he ho sp ita l. Serg eant Car

roll contac ted Solovy ’s mother, Ju d it h So lo vy , at 10:39 pm and aske d her to pick up her son. Aft er S o lovy returne d home, he be g an to experienc e prog ressive numbne ss andNo. 09-1555

Sol ov y v. Mo ra bit o

Ecc hy mosis is “the escape of blood into the tissues from ruptured blood ve ssels marked by 1 a livid blac k-and- blue or purple spot or a rea .” W e bs te r’ s Third Ne w I nte rn ati on al D ic tio na ry

718 (1986). - 5 - weakness in his right ha

nd and wr ist. The day

afte r the incide nt, Solovy went to the eme rg ency

room complaining of “numbne ss, weakne ss and pain to the right hand and wr ist, as well as multiple other tr a umatic a br a sio ns and br

uis e s. ” Th e e me rg e nc y ro om re po rt no te d that Sol ov y had “mu ltiple abra sions of his wrists, as well as ec chy moses and pain to the r ight kne e ar ea.”

1 Solovy later sa w Dr. Geoff

rey Seidel, who per formed ne rve c onduction studies on Solovy ’s ri g ht a rm . D r. Se idel fou nd “evid e nc e of ri g ht r a dia l se ns or

y ne ur op a thy

lik e ly se c on da ry to handcuf f.” F urther te sting c onfirmed “ rig ht radial ne uropathy from a ha

ndcuff injury .” On May 28 , 2 00 8, Sol ov y

fi le d a § 198 3 ac tio n ag a ins t Ser g e ant Carr oll and Of fi c e r M or a

bit o in t he Un ite d St a te s D istri c t Co ur t f or the Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of M ichig an. Sol ov y a lle g e d a

rr e st without probable c ause, e x cessive f orce , and deliber ate indiffe renc e to his medical ne eds. On Mar ch 30, 2009, the di strict court gra nted s ummary

judgme nt on all claims. The cour t found that Serg eant Carr o l l an d Of

fice r Mora

bito had probable cause to seize and restra in Solovy , and that they wer e attentive to Solovy ’s medica l needs. With respec t to Solovy ’s excessive forc e claim, the cour t found no evidenc e that Of

fice r Morabito used any forc e. Turning to Ser g eant Car roll, the court c oncluded that the evidence tended t o show that “Serg eant Carroll used som e force, but not excessive forc e.” Be cause the cour

t found S erg eant Car

roll’s use of f

orce rea sonable, it did not address the issue of qu a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y.No. 09-1555

Sol ov y v. Mo ra bit o

- 6 - Sol ov y fi le d a tim e ly a pp e a l. O n a

pp e a l, S olo vy has aban do ne d a ll c la ims e xce pt f or his

e xce ssi ve fo rc e c la im a g a ins t Se rg e ant C arr oll

. II Solovy first challeng es the district c ourt’s conclusion that he failed to c reate a g enuine issue of mate ri a l f

a c t a s to wh e the r Ser g e ant Carr oll ’s us e of fo rc e wa s r e a so na

ble . T his c ourt

re vie ws a dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r g ra

nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt de novo

. Have nsure, L .L.C. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 595 F.3d 312, 315 ( 6th Cir. 2010). Summ ary judgme nt is only

appropr iate whe re “ the pleading s, the d i s covery

and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue a s to a

ny materia l f

act and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) (2). A g en u i ne issue of material fa ct exist s if there is sufficient evide nce favor ing the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party

. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 4 77 U. S. 2 42 , 2 48 (1 98 6) . I n de te rm ini ng wh e the r a g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t e xists , th is court must dra

w all infere nces in the light most fa vorable to the nonmoving pa rty

. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). A c iti zen ’s c la im that la

w e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic ia ls us e d e xce ssi ve fo rc e in m a kin g a se izur e is revie wed under the Four

th Amendment’s “obje ctive re asonable ness” standa rd. Graham v. Connor , 49 0 U .S. 38 6, 38 8 ( 19 89 ). To det erm in e wh e the r t he fo rc e us e d to e ff

e c t a pa rt ic ula r s e izur e is “re asonable ” under the Four th A mendment, the court must ba lance the “individual interest in being fr e e fr om unr e a so na

ble se izur e s” a g a ins t the “ imp or tant g ov e rnme nt int e re st in pro te c tin g the sa fe ty of its peac e off

icer s and the public.” W

ill iam s v . Ci ty

of G ro ssePo inte Pa rk, 4 96 F .3 d 4 82 , 4 86 (6 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Graham , 4 90 U. S. at 39 6) . T he c ourt mus t thus a ff

or d care fu l atte nti on

to t he fa c tsNo. 09-1555

Sol ov y v. Mo ra bit o

- 7 - and cir cumstance of ea ch par ticular c ase, inc luding “ the seve rity of the crime at issue, whether the

su sp e c t po se s an im me diate thr e a t to the sa fe ty of the of fi c e rs or oth e rs , a nd wh e the r he is a c tiv e ly resisting arr est or attempting to evade arr est by flig ht.” Graham , 490 U.S. at 396. L ooking to the f

acts a nd circ umstances of the present case , Solovy has pre sented suff icient

e vid e nc e to c re a te a g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l fa c t as t o w he the r S e rg e ant C arr oll us e d unr e a so na ble forc e. F irst, Solovy ’s own ac count desc ribes a situation of e x cessive forc e, and nothing in the rec ord makes that a ccount inher ently unbelievable or impossible. Cf. Brandenburg v. Cureton , 882 F.3d 211, 21 6 (6 t h C i r. 1989) (finding summar y judgme nt inappropriate when the pa rties pre sented plausible contra dictory

acc ounts of events). T he evide nce in the rec ord could lea d a re asonable jury to conclude that Solovy ’s version of events is true. I n particula r, the e merg ency

room repor

t rec ords abra sions to S olovy ’s wrists and bruising to his knee that tend to cor roborate Solovy ’s claim that he was ha ndcuff ed and f orce d to the g round. S imilarly , Dr. S eidel’s reports observe ra dial neuropathy attributable to handcuffing , which tends to support Solovy ’s claim that the ha ndcuff s were applied wi th s ome fo rc e. T hi s ev id ence c on tr adi cts bo th S ergeant Ca rro ll ’s a ndOffi cer M orab it o’s accou nt s, wh ic h d e ny

any us e of ha nd c uf fs . Co mbi ne d with the dis pa ri tie s bet we e n the tw o off

ic e rs ’ a c c ounts , t h i s e v i d e n c e c o u l d

l e a d a r e a s o n a b l e j u r y t o d i s b e l i e v e t h e o f

f i c e r s an d b e l i e v e S o l o v y. Un de r S olo vy ’s ve rs ion

of e ve nts , th e re a

re thr e e ba se s f

or fi nd ing th at Se rg e ant C arr oll applied excessive forc e. F irst, give n the circ umstances, Ser g eant Car roll’s use of ha

ndcuff s to “rip” S o l o v y o u to f h i s v e h i c l e a n d f o rc e h i m t o t h e gr o u n d

wa s o b j ec t i v el y u n re as o n ab l e. Al t h o u gh Serg eant Car

roll appar ently

suspected Solovy

of drunk dr iving, Solovy was not eng ag ed or attempting to e ng ag e in illega l c onduct when Ser g eant Car roll approa ched Solovy ’s vehicle –rathe r,No. 09-1555

Sol ov y v. Mo ra bit o

Whether Solovy

was “ combative” is a fact in dispute. Serg eant Car roll claims that Solovy 1 was c ombative, but Solovy does not descr ibe any

combative be h av i o r, and the ambulance repor t rec ords no such be havior. The district c ourt emphasized J udith Sol ovy ’s testimony that Solovy

was acting“ag g ressive.” Ms. Solovy explained, however , that she did not ref er to phy sical ag g ression, but rather she mea nt “if y ou wer e diabe tic and I said to y ou, y ou’re g oing to take this orang e juice, y ou’d say , Idon’t nee d it. I ’m handling it. I ’m okay .” She fur ther noted that even when Solovy was in such a state, he would comply with her orders. Finally , Ms. Solovy testified that she wa s unawa re of her son ever becomingphy sically

ag g ressive dur ing a

diabetic e pisode. The district cour

t emphasized the unpredic tability of intox icated pe r s o n s a s a saf ety conce rn. 2 Yet while he avy

intox ication may , on its own, render it reasona

ble t o h an d cu ff an indi vidual, the re a so na ble ne ss o f t

he fo rc e us e d to e ff

e c tuate the se izur e of

the ind ivi du a l in

or de r t o h and c uf

f h im w i l l g e n e r a l l y d e p e n d

u p o no t h e r c i r c u m s t an c e s , s u c h a s t h e i n d i v i d u a l ’ s r e s i s t an c e an d

h o s t i l i t y. See M arvin v. City of Taylor , 509 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 2007) . The mer e fa ct of intox ication does not justify g ratuitous violence. - 8 - he wa s unconscious. Onc e aw akene d, Solovy appea red c onfused, possibly

intox icated, and had dif ficul ty res po nd ingto q

ue sti on s, bu t he a

pp are ntl y did no t e ng a g e in a

ny thr e a te nin g or

ho sti le conduct. Moreove r, Solovy did not disreg ard Serg eant Carroll’s commands or resist arr est; to the

1 contra ry , he complied whe n Serg eant Car roll asked him to open his ca r door. I n light of the se circ umstances, Solovy posed no appa

rent saf ety risk to the public or to the police, and S erg eant Carroll’s use of violent force to r emove Solovy from his vehicle was g ratuitous 2 and ther efor e unre asonable

. See Solomon v. Auburn Hills Police De p’t , 38 9 F .3 d 16 7, 17 1, 17 4 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (finding that throwing the plaintiff into a wa ll and forcibly handcuf fing her w as

unre a so na

ble wh e re the c ri me a t is su e wa s a mino r of fe ns e , the pla int if

f pos e d no ap pa

re nt t hr e a t to the of fi c e rs or to o the rs , a

nd the pla int if

f, a lth ou g h in iti a lly

re sis tant, c omp lie d w iththe of fi c e rs ’ ins tr uc tio ns and

did no t f le e ); se e als o S

hr e v e v . J essa mi neCou nty

Fi sc al C ou rt , 453 F.3d 681, 688No. 09-1555

Sol ov y v. Mo ra bit o

- 9 - (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ( “C ase s in thi s c ir c uit

c le arl y e sta bli shthe ri g ht o f p e op le wh o p os e no sa fe ty ri sk to the police to be f

ree from g ratuitous violence dur ing a rre st.”). Second, Solovy ’s version of events also supports the c onclusion that Serg eant Car roll used

e xce ssi ve fo rc e by

se c ur ingSol ov y ’s ha

nd c uf fs too tig htl y . In o rd e r f

or an e xce ssi ve for ce c la im based on unduly tight handcuf fing to sur

vive summary judgme nt, a plaintiff must o ff er s ufficie nt evidenc e for a

r e a s o n a b le ju r y to f in d th a t “ ( 1 ) h e o r

s h e c o mp la in e d

th a t t h e h an d c u f

f s w e r e too tight; (2) the offic ers ig nored those c omplaints; and (3) the plaintiff e x perie nced ‘ some phy sical injury ’ re sulting fr om the handcuf fing .” Morrison v. Board of Trust ees of Gre en Twp. , 583 F.3d 3 9 4 , 4 0 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Ly on s v . Ci ty of X e nia , 417 F.3d 565, 575-76 (6th Cir. 2005) ). Her e, Solovy testified that he c omplained t wi ce t h at his handcuff s were too tight, but the offic ers disreg arde d his c omplaints. Although the office rs did r emove Solovy ’s handcuf fs prior to the arr ival of EMS, medical re ports tend to show that he suf fe re d ab ra s i o ns of his wrists and “r ight r adial sensory neuropathy

likely seconda ry to handcuf

f.” Thi s ev i d en ce is sufficient to cre ate a g enuine issue of mater ial fac t as to whether Serg eant Car

roll used excessive for ce by handcuf fing Solovy

tooNo. 09-1555

Sol ov y v. Mo ra bit o

Se rg e ant C arr oll su g g e sts that Sol ov y wa s ha nd c uf fe d fo r t oo sh or

t a pe ri od to g ive ri se to 1 a Fourth Amendment viol ation, but he cites no case law supporting t he propositi on that a plaintiff must wear ha

ndcuff s for a minimum amount of time in order to rec over. N or does suc h a rule appea r a pp ro pr iate . O nc e an o fficer has han dc uf fe d a nd ne utr a lize d a

su sp e c t, r e fu sin g to l oo se n o ve rl y tight handc uffs is a g ratuitous use of f orce . Thus, if an off

icer simply chooses to ig nore a

suspect’s complaints and there by

cause s the suspect injury

–even if that injury

occur s in a relatively

short span of tim e–t he offic e r’ s u se of fo rc e is e xce ssi ve . T his do e s n ot m e an, of c ours e , th a t e ve ry

de lay in a tte nd inga

su sp e c t’ s c omp la int s w ill re su lt i n r e c ov e ry : if c ir c ums tanc e s r e nd e r a

n off ice r u na ble to attend to a suspec t’s complaints i m m ediately , the offic er pr esumably will not be liable for excessive forc e so long as he a ddresse s the suspect’s c omplaints as soon as circ umstances a llow. - 10 - t i g h t l y. See id. a t 40 3 ( no tin g tha t, i n c omb inatio n w ith ig no re d c omp la int s, “ [b]r uis ing , s kin

mark s, 1 and attenda

nt pain” may

be suff icient to cre ate a

g enuine issue of

materia l fac t). Third, based on Solovy ’s ver sion of events, a jury could conc lude that Serg eant Car roll lifted Sol ov y by the ha

nd c uf fs and that th e c ir c ums tanc e s r e nd e re d th is a n unr e a so na

ble us e of fo rc e . T his court ha s “held repea

tedly that the us e of forc e after a suspect has been incapac itated or ne utralized is e x cessive as a matter of law.” Ba k e r v. City of H am ilton , O hio , 471 F.3d 601, 608 ( 6th Cir. 2006). I n this case, Ser g eant Car roll forc ed Solovy

to the g round and ha

ndcuff ed him behind his back, there by incapa citating him. Whil e S erg eant Carroll was handc uffingSolovy , Solovy told him t hat he suff ere d a “ba d locked shoulder .” Ne verthe less, one of the officers picked S olovy up using the ha nd c uf fs , r e su lti ngin “ a g on izin g pa in. ” Al tho ug h Sol ov y c ou ld no t se e the of fi c e r wh o li ft e d h im, it is reasonable to infer that Ser g eant Car roll lifted him, given that S erge ant Carr oll placed the handcuf fs on Solovy ’s wrists immediately befor e he w as lifted. The method Serg eant Car roll used to l if t S o lo v y

– p u ll in g th e c h a in s o f

h an d c u f f s s e c u r e d b e h in d So lo v y ’ s b a c k

to h o is t h is b o dy weig h t– w a s a lm o s t gu ar an te e d

to c a u s e s u b s ta n ti a l p a in , e s p e c ia ll y

to a p e r s o nw it

h a s h o u ld er i n j u r y. F u rt h e r , n o t h i n g s u g g e s t s t h a t t h i s w a s a n e c e s s ar y o r e v e nana p p r o p r i a t e w ay t o l i f

tS o l o v y.No. 09-1555

Sol ov y v. Mo ra bit o

The c ourt may

consider the two parts of the inquiry “in whateve r order is a

ppropriate in light 1 o f t h e i ssues befor e us.” Moldowan v. City of W arren , 578 F.3d 351, 375 ( 6th Cir. 2009) (citing Pearson v. Callahan , 129 S. Ct . 808, 818 (2009))

. - 11 - Thus lifting Solovy

from the g round using his handcuff chains would be plainly unrea sonable. See J on es v . G ar c ia , No. 08-1968, 2009 WL3109826 (6th Cir. Sept. 29, 2009) (f inding that a

n office r used excessiv e fo rc e when he alleg edly “snatc hed” the plaintiff, who wa s ly ing f ace down on the g round and w ho aler

ted the off

icer to an injury

to his right shoulder, up by the rig ht arm). B e c a us e the re is su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e fo r a

re a so na ble jur y to c on c lud e that Se rg e ant C arr oll used excessive for ce, the district court er red w hen it conclude d that Solovy failed to r aise a g enuine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t. III Sol ov y ne xt ar g ue s th a t Ser g e ant C arr oll is n ot e nti tle d to qu a lif ie d im mun ity . T o e va luate

a c l a i m o f qu a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y i n e x c e s s i v e f o r c e c a s e s , t h i s c o u rte n g a g e s i na t w o - p arti n qu i r

y. 1 Grawe yv . D ru ry , 567 F.3d 302, 309 (6th Cir. 2009)

. First, the court a sks whether , taken in the lig ht most favora

ble to the par

ty asser ting the injury , the fa cts alleg ed sh o w t h at the off icer ’s conduc t violated a c onstitut ional rig ht. Ibid. Second, the court de termines whe ther the c onstitut ional rig ht alleg edly violated was “ clea

rly established.” Ibid. A r ig ht i s cle arl y e sta bli sh e d if “ any of fi c e r i n the def endant’ s position, m easur ed objec tively , would have c lear ly understood that he w as under an aff irmative duty

to have r efr ained f

rom such conduc t.” Bo ug ge ss v. Ma tti ng ly , 482 F.3d 886, 694 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Do mi nq uev . Te lb , 831 F.2d 673, 676 ( 6th Cir. 1 987)). An of fice r is “on notice” that his conduct violates clea rly established constit utional rig hts “if the state of the lawat theNo. 09-1555

Sol ov y v. Mo ra bit o

- 12 - time of the alleg ed depr ivation provides ‘fa ir war ning’ that his actions are unconstitutional.” Hu mp hr e yv . M ab ry , 4 8 2 F. 3 d

8 4 0 , 8 5 2 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Hope v . Pelzer , 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)) . The plaintiff b ea rs t h e b urden of showing that the def

endant is not entitled to qualified immunit y . Chappell v. City of Cl eve land , 585 F.3d 901, 907 ( 6th Cir. 2009). At the pr e se nt s ta g e of thi s ca se , Ser g e ant Carr oll is not e nti tle d to qua lif ie d immunit

y . F ir st, as explained in our ana ly sis above, Solovy ’s ver sion of ev en ts supports a finding that Serg eant Carroll violated Solovy ’s Four th A mendment rig ht to be fr ee f rom excessive for ce in thre e wa y s: (1) by usin g gra tuitous and thus unreasonable forc e in re moving Solovy from his vehicle ; (2) by applying Solovy ’s h andcuf fs too tightly

and ig noring his complaints, and (3) by using a n unnece ssary and painf ul method to lift S olovy

from the g round af

ter he had bee n incapa citated. Se c on d, the state of

the law at the tim e that Se rg e ant Carr oll de pr ive d So lov y of his F ourt h Am e ndme nt r ig hts –th a t is, on J un e 29 , 200 6– pr ov ide d Ser g e ant Carr oll wi th f a ir wa rn ingthat hi s actions we re unc onstitut ional. Since 1989, the S upreme Court has held that a use of force that is not objectively

rea sonable violates the F ourth Amendme nt. Graham , 490 U.S. at 388. Prior to the events in question her e, this court fo u n d that the g ratuitous use of f orce ag ainst a compliant, nonthreatening individual who had committed a re latively minor crime was not objectively rea sonable. See Solomon , 3 89 F .3 d at 16 7; see also Shrev e , 453 a t 688 (“ Ca se s in this c ir c uit c le arl y e sta bli sh the right of people who pos e no safe ty risk to the police to be f ree from g ratuitous violence dur ing

arr e st. ” ). L ike wi se , thi s c ourt a c kn ow le dg e d the F ourt h Am e ndme nt ri g ht to be fr e e fro m u nd uly tight or e x cessively

forc eful ha

ndcuff ing dur ing the course of a se izure at l ea s t as ea rly as 2002. Morrison , 5 8 3 F

. 3 d a t 4 0 1 ( c i t i n g Kostrzewa v. Cit y of Troy , 247 F.3d 633, 639 ( 6th Cir. 2001)).No. 09-1555

Sol ov y v. Mo ra bit o

- 13 - F ina lly , th is c ir c uit ’s c a se law h a s r e c og nize d th e un c o n s t i t ut i o n a lity of us ingg ra tui tou s f or c e a g a ins t an inca pacitate d suspect since 1991. P h e lp s v . Coy , 2 8 6 F

. 3 d 2 9 5 , 3 0 2 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 )

. In

c omb inatio n w ith c a se law re g ard ing e xce ssi ve ly fo rc e fu l ha nd c uf fi ng , th is p ro vid e d a

ny re a so na ble of fi c e r w ith“ fa ir

wa rn ing ” that li ft ingan inc a

pa c itate d susp e c t in the mann e r de sc ri be d in th is c a se would violate the suspec t’s Four th Amendment rig hts, at least where the suspect warned the office r that he had a

n injured ar

m. Cf. Jones , 2009 WL 3109826, at *2 (a naly zing similar conduct)

. Thus , b a se d o n So lov y ’s ve rs ion of e ve nts , Se rg e ant C arr oll vio late d So lo vy ’s c le arl y

e s t a b l i s h e d F o u rt h A m e n dm e n tr i g h t s an d i s t h e r e f o r e n o te n t i t l e d

t o qu a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y. IV For the fore g oing r easons, we REVERSE the order of the district c ourt insofar as it applies t o S o l o v y ’s ex cessive f

orce claim ag ainst Serg eant Car roll, and REMAND the c ase to the district

c ourt fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.