T he Hon. R i char d M i l l s, U ni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Judg e f or t he Cent r al D i st r i ct of I l l i noi s, si t t i ng b y * d e s i g n a ti o n .

B i v e n s v. S i x U n k n o w n N a m e d A g e n ts o f F e d . B u re a u o f N a rc o ti c s , 4 0 5 U .S . 3 8 8 (1 9 7 1 ). 1 NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 07a0121n .06 Fi led : F ebr uar

y 15, 2007 05- 2333 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT DE LOR ES EGG E R S O N , P e r s o nal Rep re sent ati v e of the Est ate o f Leon Dan dredg e, D eceas ed, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t, v. MARK HESSL ER, Defendant -A ppel lee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COUR T FOR T HE W ESTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: BOGG S, Chief Judge, DAUGHT REY, C ircuit Judge, an d MILLS , Distri ct * Judg e. MA RTH A C RA IG DA UG HTR EY , C ircui t J udg e. This Biv ens acti on aros e f ro m the 1 shoot ing deat h of the pla int iff’s d ecede nt, Leon D andredg e, by the defendant, U. S. D eputy Marshal Mark Hessler. W hen the sho oting occurred , Hessle r a n d his partne r w ere searchi ng for D andredg e in the b asementof a hous e i n an attemptto ar re st him pursuant to a warrant . Th e plain tif f f il e d suit, cont end ing that Hessler used ex cessive fo rce in vio la t io n o f

t h e Fo u rt h A m e n d m e n t a n d t h a tHe s s le r wa s n o te n t it le d t o qu a li f ie d im m u n it y.05-2333

Eggerson v. H

essler

- 2 - The di str ict c our

t granted summar

y j udg ment t o the defendant, findi ng thatthere w ere no dis puted is sues of

m ater ial factand conc lud ing as a matter of law thatD andredg e’s F our th A m e n d m e n tri gh t s we re n o tvi o la t e d
. T h e co u rta ls o n o t e d t h a tt h e d e fe n d a n two u ld h a ve bee n en titled to q ualif ied imm un it y in any event. Beca use we conclude thatthe district c ou rt c or rectl y

d ec i de d th e i s s ue s o f fact an d l aw b efo re i t, w e affi r m. FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND Mo st of the fact s leadi ng up to the shooti ng w ere notdi sput ed i n the di str ict c our t. T he reco rd develope d the re estab lished th at Hessler, assigned t o the U.S . Marshal’s Of f ice in Grand Rapi d s , M ichigan, received informa tion in Jun e 20 03 f rom th e U.S. Marsha l’s Off ic e i n Ind ian apol is thatan arrestw ar ra nt had iss ued for Leon Dan dredg e based upo n mult ipl e parole v iol ati ons and t hat Dan dredg e w as bel iev ed to be i n M usk eg on, M ic hig an. I n h is e f fo rtt o f in d a n d a rr e s tDa n d re d ge , He s s le r re c e ive d a n d r e a d a f il e o n t h e f u gi t ive indic ati ng , inter alia , t h a t D a n d re d g e h a d a h i s t o r y o f a r re s t s fo r a s s a u l t a n d bat teryand tha t failure to atte nd co urt-orde red an ger-mana geme nt cou nseling w as listed am ong his parole v iol ati ons. Throug houtth a t s u m m e r, He ss le r in ves ti gat e d D andredg e’sw hereaboutsand made cont actw it h mult ipl e sources w ho confir med that Dan dredg e w as in the M usk eg on area. It ev entual ly became cl ear to H ess ler thatD andredg e k new

he w as bei ng so ug ht an d w as act iv ely el udi ng ar re st. Atone poin t, Dand re dg e s poke ov er the phone w it h D etecti v e C had Na d e r, a lo ca l p o lic e de te ct ive who h a d b e co m e i n volve d i n t h e c a se be ca u se Da n d re d ge05-2333

Eggerson v. H

essler

- 3 - w as also be ing s o u gh t by the police in relation to alleged sexual criminal con ductin Mi chi g an. Dan dredg e as ked Nad er w h e th e r th e “ feds” w ere l ooki ng for h im, and N ader told h im tha t the Marshals had an arrest w arrant citing him for parole v iolation s, to w hich Dan dredg e respon ded t hat h e di d notw ant to go back to jai l. Al thoug h D andredg e as sured Nad er thathe woul d tur n hi msel f in on a date cer tai n, he di d notdo s o. Nad er co nv ey ed the s ubst ance of this co nv ersat ion to Hes sl er . On t he day

of the s hooti ng , Au g ust20, 2003, He ss ler and his par

tner , Ke nneth Groenv eld , had recei v ed informati on that Dandredg e mig ht be hi din g out w it h hi s g ir lfri end, W anda H enderson, w ho resi ded i n a h ouse in Mu sk eg on. Hes sl er and Groenv eld w ent to that loc ati on to inv est ig ate. After an ini ti al del ay , Hen derson answ ered th e do o r and indicat ed in resp onse to the ir i nquiry thatDandre d ge wa s not th ere bu t, no net hele ss, cons ented to t he officers’ se arch of the premis es. After se archi ng the main li v ing area, the off ic ers a sk ed w hether

D andredg e w as in the basement of the hous e. Hen derson re pli ed, “I don’ t k now .” The officers t hen w ent t o s earch the b asement
. As the o ff ic ers d esc ended t he s tai rs tog ether , H ess ler i ndi cat ed th eir

presenc e by loud ly ann oun cing that the y w ere U nited Sta tes M arsha ls and w ere there to serv e an arrest w ar ra nt on D andredg e. Hes sl er al so dre w

hi s w eapon a nd k ept i t athi s s ide
. The base me nt w as dim ly

lit and very

clu ttere d. A t the bott om of the ste ps, to the no rth, w as a smal l lau ndr

y room. The room co ntained a w asher and dr y er and pil es of cl othi ng and other i tems. G ro env eld took a s tep i nto the room and looked around, but he di d notse e05-2333

Eggerson v. H

essler

- 4 - Dan dredg e. The off ic ers t hen proce e d e d to search throug h the remaini ng rooms o f the basement , repeated ly

announ ci ng thei r presenc e as theyw ent. Unabl e to find D andredg e, they beg an to head out o f the bas ement, Groenv eld i n the lea d and Hes sl er follo w ing
. As Groenv eld ascended the sta irs, He ss ler notic ed an abnor mall y

l arg e pi le of cl othi ng i n the lau ndr y room and deci ded t o i nv est ig ate fur ther
. W hathap pen ed n ext w as the subjectof disagree m e n tb e tw een the pa rties. Hessler describe d the laund ry room as sma ll, mea suring 11 feet4 i n c h e s f ro m t he west to ea st w alls a n d 6 feet 8 i nches from t he nor th t o s outh w all s, w it h an entrance on th e sout h w all of the room that w as 7 feet 6 inches f ro m the w estw all
. He tes ti fied th at after deci din g to inv est ig ate t he pi le of l aundr y , he ste pped int o the lau ndr y ro om and t ow ard the no rt h w e s t c o r n e r . At t h a t p o i n t , h e s a i d , h e re a c h e d fo r a b l a n k e t a t o p a l a rg e p i l e of clo th e s in ord e r to as ce rt a in w h e th e r Da n d re d ge was hi d in g th e re an d , w it h o u t ma kin g a so u n d , Da n d re d ge b o lt e d up righ t, lu n gin g up ward atHe ss le r ou t o f th e pi le of

clo th in g. Acc ordin g to Hes sl er , Dan dredg e w as almos t on top o f him, a lt houg h not i n actual co ntact, and i t app eared to H ess ler thatD andredg e had ambushed hi m in an a ttemptto ov er pow er him physica lly. U nsure w het her Dand redge w as arm ed, Hessler said thatit crossed his mind that Dan dredg e mi g ht be tr y ing to g et c ontrol of his w eapon, and he therefore fired one s hot a t D andredg e w hil e s teppi ng bac kw ard tow ard the d o o rway . Hes sl er l ater estim ate d tha t he was only one to tw o f e e tf ro m Da ndre dge w hen he f ired. Th e sho t hit Dan dredg e i n the head, w o u n din g hi m fatall y . Al l of this , H ess ler sa id, oc cur re d i n an ins tant. Lat er , i t w as deter mined that Dan dredg e w as unar med at the t ime.05-2333

Eggerson v. H

essler

- 5 - The pl ain ti ff

co ntended that the shooti ng could not hav e occur re d the w ay H ess ler desc ri bed i t. He r firs t c lai m w as that becau se the l aundr y room w as larg er

than H ess ler tes ti fied, h e musthav e been farther aw ay f ro m Dan dredg e than he sai d. This arg ument has been ex press ly

abando ned on appeal
. W hat is nowat is sue is the pla int iff’s s econd a rgu m e n t, w h ich is b a se d on w h a t s h e co n te n d s is evid e n ce es ta b lis h in g th a t Da n d re d ge did not lun g e at Hes sl er . That ev ide nce is di sc uss ed i n more det ail bel ow . After the p lai nti ff

broug ht t his ac ti on ag ain st H e ss ler and Groenv eld , al leg ing ex ces si v e forc e i n v iol ati on of the Four th A mendm e n t, b o th defendants fil ed moti ons for summar y j udg ment. The di str ict j udg e g ra nted Groenv eld ’s su mmary j udg ment moti on, and thatdecision is not before us. After a ll owi ng time for f urthe r discov ery , the district jud g e g ra nted summar y j udg m e n t in Hes sl er ’s fav or al so, findi ng thatthere w ere no dis puted is sues of mater ial fact a nd th at, as a matt er of law , Da n d re d ge’ s F our th Amendment ri g hts had not b een v iol ated. DI SC US SION W e rev iew

a di str ict c our

t’ s g ra nt of s ummary

j udg ment de n ovo . See Michig an Be ll T el. Co. v. MFS In telen et of Michigan, Inc., 3 39 F.3d 4 28, 4 33 (6th Cir . 200 3). Sum ma ry jud g ment i s a ppropr iat e w here “ there is no g enui ne i ss ue as to any mater ial fact a nd .
. . t h e m o v i n g p a rt y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n ta s a m a t t e r o f l a w . ” F e d
. R
. C i v . P
. 5 6 ( c )
. We must v iew

al l ev ide nce and any

factual i nferenc es in the l ig ht mos t fav ora ble to the n onmov ing par

ty
. See M ats ushi ta E lec . I ndus. C o. v . Z eni th R adi o C or p., 475 U .S. 574, 587-05-2333

Eggerson v. H

essler

- 6 - 88 ( 1986)
. Once t he mov ing par ty has su ff ic ien tl y

i nformed t he c our

t of the basi s for

i ts moti on, t he burden s hifts to the n on- mov ing party to demonst ra te w hy

summary

j udg ment w oul d be ina ppro p riate, and the non- mov ing par ty mustdo more tha n s impl y sh ow that there i s s om e me ta ph y s i c al d ou bta s t o th e ma te r i al facts
. S ee F ed
. R
. C i v . P. 5 6( e); Ma t s u s h it a , 4 7 5 U. S
. a t5 8 6
. Ra t h e r, t h e p la in t if f m u s tc o m e f o rwa rd wit h a f f ir m a t ive ev ide nce upon w hic h a rati onal j ur y co uld find for

the pla int iff. See Anderson v . Li ber ty Lobby , I nc. , 477 U .S. 252, 256- 57 ( 1986)
. B e c a u s e i t re q u i re s l i t t l e a n a l y s i s t o c o n c l u d e t h a t i f t h e i n c i d e n t o c c u r re d in the manner des cr ibe d by Hes sl er , there w as no cons ti tuti onal v iol ati on, the d is posi ti v e i ss ue in th i s c as e i s w he th er th ere are an y g en ui ne i s s ue s of ma te r i al fac t th atcontrad ict Hes sl er ’s v ersi on of ev ents
. In t he di str ict c our t, the p lai nti ff

reli ed on tw o pi ece s of evidence in an a ttem pt to prove that Dand redge had not lun ged at Hessler: (1) the af f idavit o f her expert, Dav id Balash , statin g tha t Dand redge “w as no t v iolent ly atta cking M ark Hes sl er by bol ti ng up to w ard hi m,” and (2 ) Groenv eld ’s depos it ion , i n w hic h, ac cordin g to th e pl a in ti f

f , G ro e n veld te st if ie d th a t Da n d re d ge wa s s i t t i n g on hi s b u tt o ck s with hi s le gs straight out in f ront of

him imm edi a t e ly a ft e r he w as sho t, the reby negating H essler’s ass erti on that he bol ted upw ard at him. The pla int iff al so arg ued that bl o o d -s patte r ana ly sis setting the he ight of the blo odle tting injury

a t 35 inche s co nf licted w ith Hessler’s depos it ion tes ti mony

reg ardin g D andredg e’s pos it ion at the t ime of the s hooti ng , t hereby creati ng a q uest ion of w hether H ess ler w as act ual ly

att ack ed.05-2333

Eggerson v. H

essler

- 7 - The di str ict c our

t found t hat t he Bal ash aff ida v itw as enti re ly co ncl u so ryand therefore ins uff ic ien t to defeat summar y jud g ment, ci ti ng W il li ams v . Ford M otor C o., 187 F. 3d 533, 543- 44 ( 6th C ir . 199 9)
. On ap peal , t he pla int iff ag ain reli es on th e aff ida v itbut fails to address the dis tr ict c our t’ s r uli ng , w hic h w e find w as cor re ct and w hic h prev ents re li ance on th is ev ide nce to establ is h the propos it ion for w hic h it w as offered below . See United State s v . Elde r, 9 0 F.3d 1 110 , 111 8 (6th Cir. 19 96) (“[i]t is a sett led ap pellat e rule that is sues adv erted t o i n a p er functor y manner , un a cc ompani ed by so me effort at dev elo ped arg umentati on, a re deemed w aiv ed.” ) (i nter nal q uotat ion mar ks and ci tati ons omitted)
. A readi ng of the B ala sh aff ida v itsh ow s t hat a lt houg h Bal ash mechani cal ly l is ted the facts he relied u pon t o ma ke his conclu sions, he did no t rev eal, e v en in a m ost ba sic sense , the “process o f r e a s o n ing” or “inferen tial process” he relied on in m aking his conc lus ion s. See W il li ams, 187 F .3d a t 544
. The di str ict c our

t al so re jected t he pl ain ti ff ’s readi n g o f G ro e n v e l d ’ s t e s ti mony , noti ng that despi te c ounse l’ s repeated att em p ts t o g et hi m to t est ify othe rw is e, G ro env eld had uneq uiv ocal ly

tes ti fied th at he nev er

sa w Dandredg e’s low er

bodybec ause itw as cov ered by cl othi ng and that he c oul d onl y sp ecul ate a s t o w hether D andredg e w a s cro u ched or si tti ng on h is butt ock s. H ence, the onl y credi ble ev ide nce re g ardin g the posi ti on of Dan dredg e’s body

ca me from a pol ic e repor t i n dic ati ng thathe w as found in a c ro uched posi ti on. That ev ide nce w as compl etel y co nsi ste nt w it h H ess ler ’s v ersi on of ev ents
.05-2333

Eggerson v. H

essler

- 8 - W it h reg ard to the b loo d- spatter ev ide nce, the pla int iff appare ntl y arg ues that a blo odst ain patt er n anal y si s p er formed by

a s tate forens ic e xpe rtdemons trated that Dand redge w as in the northwest corne r of the room w hen shot , as evidenced by “a stain on th e nor

th w all approx imat ely

15 i nches from t he w estw all , 35 inc hes abov e the floor .” Arg uin g from a pathol og is t’ s re p o r t t h a t D a n d redg e w as re ndered i mmediat ely unc onsc iou s b y the bu lle t t o hi s h e a d , t h e pl a in ti f f no w p u ts fo rward th e fo llo wing: Therefore, P lai nti ff ’s theo ry i s t hat t he fore n si c e v ide nce shows t hat Dan dredg e’s head w as near the cor ner

betw een t he w all and the s ide of the dr y er betw een 24 a n d 3 6 i n ches from t he floor w here he w as shot
. From thi s, Pl ain ti ff ’s theory

is that Dand re dg e w as not l ung ing tow ard H ess ler w hen Hes sl er sh ot hi m in the head. The probl em, of cou rs e, i s t hat t he pla int iff’s conc lus ion is no more tha n the or y and does not e sta bli sh a factual bas is for t he proposi ti on th at pl ain ti ff w oul d hav e us adopt , i. e. , t hat “t h e bl o o d sp a tt e r evid e n ce . . . ma ke s cle a r a gen u in e d isp u te as to w h e th e r Da n d re d ge w as act ing ag g re ss iv ely or w as pla nni ng to g iv e hi msel f up” becau se iti s “ cons is tent w it h Pl ain ti ff ’s cl aim that Dan dredg e w as eit her sitt ing or w as near ly

sitt ing on the f loo r w hen he w as shot .” O bv iou sl y , thes e are mere c oncl usi ons , a n d the pl ain ti ff fail s t o ex pla in how the e v ide nce of the hei g ht of the bl ood s patte rs co nflicts w it h Hes sler’s tes ti mony or ind ic ates thatD andredg e w as not l ung ing
. Mo re ov er , as the dist ric t co u rt poi nted out, “t here [w a]s cl ear

ev ide nce that Dan dredg e w as ri si ng f ro m his hidi ng place w hen he w as shot , for his body

w as found onl y

parti all y conceal ed i n a s q uatti ng pos it ion .” I n addi ti on, the p lai nti ff ’s theo ry

that Dandredg e mig ht hav e intende d to g iv e himsel f up is bel ied by the05-2333

Eggerson v. H

essler

- 9 - fact th at he nev er

made a sound i n respon se to the marshal s’ repeated i nv it ati ons that he do s o. W e c oncl ude t hat t he plai nti ff has simpl y

fail ed to show

that there is a g enui ne i ss ue of materi al fact as to how t h e s h o o ti n g occur re d or to re fute thati t hap pened j ustas Hessler testif ied. Viewing t h e f a c ts in the light mo st favorable to th e plain tif f , w e mu st the refore assu me thatw hen Hessler neared Dandred ge’s hid i ng s pace, Dand redge silently and forc efull y

bol ted u pw ard i n a mov ement that coul d be percei v ed as an attac k, and t hat He s s le r, re a s o n a b ly p e rc e ivi n g i ta s su c h , f ir e d o u to f a co n c e rn fo r h is o wn sa fe t y. In th e ab sence of

disput ed facts con cerning the sh oot ing, the district court correctly proceed ed to dete rmi ne as a l eg al matter w hether the use of force in thi s c a se w as excessiv e, in vi olatio n of Dandred ge’s r ights u n der the Fourth Am end me nt. T he co urt det ermin ed th at th ere w as no constitu tiona l v iolation a n d , t h e refore, did not f ind it neces sar

y to deter mine w hether

H ess ler w as enti tl ed to q ual ified i mmunity
. Cl aims of ex ces si v e forc e i n the co urse of an ar re st “s houl d be anal yz ed unde r the Four th A mendment an d i ts ‘reason abl eness ’ sta ndard.” See Sample v . Bail ey , 409 F .3d 689, 696 (6th Ci r. 2005) ( q uoti ng Graham v . C onnor , 490 U .S. 386, 395 ( 1989) ). U se of d e a d ly fo rc e is co n s t it u t io n a ll y re a s o n a b le o n ly i f “t h e o f f ic e r h a s p ro b a b le ca u s e t o b e li e ve that the s uspect pos es a threatof seri ous phy si cal harm, eith er to the o ff ic er

or to others.” See i d. at696- 97 ( q uoti ng Tennes se e v. G a rn er , 471 U .S. 1, 11 ( 1985) ). “ The

‘ re a s o n a b l e n e s s ’ o f a p a rt i c u l a r u s e o f fo rc e m u s tb e j u d g e d fro m the pers p e c t i v e o f a05-2333

Eggerson v. H

essler

- 10 - re asona ble off ic er

on t he s cene, rather

than w it h the 20/2 0 v is ion of hindsi g ht.” Id. at697 (q uoti ng Graham, 490 U. S. at 396)
. Al so, “ the c alc ulu s o f reas onabl eness mustembody all ow ance for th e fact that pol ic e off ic ers a re often forced to mak e s pli t- sec ond j udg ments – i n c ircums tanc es that are tens e, uncer tai n, and ra pid ly ev olv ing – ab out t he amountof force tha t is n ecessa ry

in a p articular situat ion.” I d. (q uot ing Grah am , 409 U.S
. at 39 6-97 ). On t he undi sput ed facts of thi s c ase, w e concl ude – as did the dis tr ict cour t – that there i s n o g enui ne is sue of mat er ial fact as to t he reason abl eness of Hes sl er ’s percept ion that he w as under

threat o f ser iou s p hy sic a l h a rm. H ess ler kn ew thatD andredg e had a his tor y of ar re sts and one c onv icti on for assaul t and batter

y . He knew

that Dandredg e w as w illing to go to so me le ngth to avoid arrest, giv en th at he had bee n actively eludin g arrest and had state d to Nad er thathe did n ot w antto go b ack to jail. Th e room w as sma ll, clutte red, an d dim ly

lit, and Dan dred ge w as hidin g and silent. Despite W and a Hend erson ’s eq uiv ocat ion , H ess ler

had no w ay

of know ing for s ure tha t D andredg e w as act ual ly present in the b asement
. W hen D andredg e s udde n ly lu ng ed atH ess ler w it hout w ar nin g , from Hes sl er ’s poi nt of v iew the si tuati on had all the hal lmar ks of a n a m b u sh
. Hess ler w as w it hin tw o feet of hi m and di d notkn ow at that poi nt w hether Dan dredg e w as ar med. Itw as certain ly reason able for h im to fear tha t Dand redge w as ne ar eno ugh to him to physically ov er pow er

hi m and t ake his w eapon. Si g nific antl y , t hese ev ents happen ed w it h s pli tsec o n d ra p i d i t y , l e a v i n g l i t t l e t i me fo r fu rt h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o r re fl e c t i o n o n H e s s l e r ’ s part. Und er thes e c ircums tanc es, w e c annot say that the use of de adl y force w as unreason abl e.05-2333

Eggerson v. H

essler

- 11 - CO NC LU SION For the re asons se t outabov e, w e AF FI RM the jud g ment of the dis tr ict c our t.