The Honor able Jane A. Restani, Chief J udg e of the United States Court of I nternational * Trade , 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: 06a0937n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 29, 2006 05-2690 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
RAL PH STEGAL L , Plaintiff, G A LE S T E G A LL, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. ROBERT AU DETTE, JEFF B EL L OMO, J EREMY CHANNEL L S, DA NI ELEMERY, ANNE MOT T, DEAN MU CZYNSKI , RAY SOT O, Join tly

and Se ve ra lly

and in t he ir I ndividual Capacities; CI TY OF DETROI T, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : DAUGHT REY and COL E, Circuit J udg es, and RESTANI , J udg e. * RESTANI, Ju dge. Plaintiff-Appellant Ga le Steg all (“Steg al l ”) f iled suit ag ainst office r Anne Mott (“Mott”) of the De troit Pol ice De partment, c laiming that Mott used excessive f orce ag ainst her in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). The district c ourt g rante d summary judgme nt for Mott, finding that Stega ll failed to prese nt a g enuine is s u e as to whether Mott attacked he r. Stega ll appeals, c laiming that the d i s t ri ct court ig nored e vidence from which a jury could have05-2690

Ste ga ll, e t al . v . A ud

e tte , e t al

.

- 2 - rea sonably

inferr ed that Mott was Steg all’s assailant. We find that Stega ll has not demonstrated the exis tence of a g enuine issue of materia l fac t, and there fore aff irm the district court’s de cision.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND
On J une 19, 2002, seve ral De troit police offic ers e n gage d i n a high-spee d pursuit of an alleg edly stolen car occupie d by Ralph Stega ll J r., son of Gale and Ralph Steg all Sr. (the “Steg alls”). The pursuit ende d when Ralph Steg all J r. wa s appre hended in a y ard outside his par ents’ home. Noting the commotio n i n t h ei r y ard, the Stega lls went outside to inquire why their son was unde r
arr e st. Th e Ste g a lls c la im that whe n Ral ph Ste g a ll Sr. a pp ro a c he d the of

fi c e rs , the y or de re d h im t o dr op to t he g ro un d, bu t, b e fo re he ha d ti me to r e a c t, he wa s thr ow n do wn , k ic ke d, and sp ra y e d w ith pepper spray . The Steg alls also claim that Mott pushed Gale Steg all ag ainst a car , choked he r, and sp ra y e d p e pp e r s pr ay

int o h e r f a c e and e y e s. The Steg alls jointl y filed suit a g ainst the City of Detroit and police office rs Robert Audette, Jef f B e llo mo, Jer e my

Cha nn e lls , D anie l E me ry , A nn e Mo tt, De an M uc zy ns ki, and Ray Sot o (“ De fe nd ants ” ), a lle g ingthat D e fe nd ants us e d unr e a so na ble and e xce ssi ve for c e a g a ins t th e m in violation of their rights under the Four th and Fourtee nth Amendments to the U.S. Consti tution. On July 7, 20 05 , th e dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d De fe nd ants ’ mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt w ithre sp e c t to
a ll c la ims ma de by Ga le Ste g a ll. Th e c ourt no te d th a t th e Ste g a lls ’ A me nd e d Co mpl a int sp e c if ic a lly alleg ed that it was Mott who attac ked Steg all, and that they did not bring a

ny claims ag ainst an unknown “Jane Doe ” off icer
. S t e ga l l v . A u d e tte , No . 04-70972, 2005 WL2038545, at *6 (E.D.05-2690

Ste ga ll, e t al . v . A ud

e tte , e t al

.

Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

de nie d th e De fe nd ants’ mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt w ithre sp e c t to 1 some of the claims asser

ted by Ralph Stega ll Sr. ag ainst office rs Muczy nski, Sot o, and Emer

y . Since then, Ralph Steg all Sr. has stipulated to a dismissal of his claims ag ainst M u cz y n s k i , Soto, and Emery , wit h p rejudice. Gale Stega ll appeals only the district court’s or der g ranting summary jud g me nt i n f

a vo r o f o ff

ic e r M ott a g a ins t he r p art ic ula

r c la ims
. - 3 - Mich. J uly

7, 2005). The court found t hat S teg all was “unable to show any plausible evidenc e that any n am ed Defenda

nt used excessive for ce a g ainst her.” Id. Stega ll appeals the district c ourt’s 1 order g ranting summary

judgme nt in favor of

Mott.
DI SCU SSIO N
A. Jurisdiction an d Stan dard of Review
The district cour

t had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2000). We have jur isdiction to r e v ie w a f

in a l o r d e r g r an ti n g s u mm ar y ju d g me n t p u r s u an t to 2 8 U
. S. C. § 1 2 9 1
. We r e v ie w a dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r g ra

nti ngsu mma

ry jud g me nt de novo , applying the same standard a s the district court. Alkire v. I

rving , 330 F.3d 802, 809 ( 6th Cir. 2003).
Sum mary jud g me nt i s a

pp ro pr ia te wh e n th e “ ple a di ngs, dep os iti on s, ans we rs to interrog atories, a

nd admissions on file, toge ther with the a ffidavits, if any , show that there is no g enuine issue a s to any

materia l f

act a nd that the moving pa

rty is entitled to a judgme nt as a matter of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) . On summary judgme nt, Mott, as the moving par ty , initially

bear s the burden to identify

the portions of the e v i d en ce t h at she “be lieves demonstrate the abse nce of a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t.” Ce lot e

xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 47 7 U. S. 31 7, 32 3 ( 19 86 ). I f M ott me e ts05-2690

Ste ga ll, e t al . v . A ud

e tte , e t al

.

- 4 - this burden, Steg all then bea rs the burde n of pre s en ting e vidence sufficie nt to avoid summary judgme nt.
To ca rry her bur den, Steg all must pr es en t m o re tha n the “‘ mere exis tence of a sc intill a of
e vid e nc e ’” su

pp or tin g he r p os iti on ; r a the r, “ ‘t he re mus t be e vid ence on whic h th e jur y c ou ld
rea sonably

find for the plaintiff.’” Highland Capit al, Inc. v . Franklin Nat’l Bank , 350 F.3d 558, 564 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 251–52 (1986)). We re solve all cre dibilit y

deter minations in favor of Steg all, and dra w all reasonable inf

ere nces in he r favor. Adams v. M

etiva , 31 F.3d 375, 379, 382 (6th Cir. 1994). Neve rtheless, we are not oblige d to acc ept implausible infere nces f

rom circ umstantial evidence
. Id. a t 38 2 ( “ We a g re e wi th the Ni nth Cir c uit that the S upreme Court in Matsushita [ Electric I ndustrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)], authorized ‘an inquiry on summary judgme nt into the implausibility of infer ence s from ci rc u m s t an t i al ev i d en ce . . . . ’” ) ( qu o t i n g Mc Lau gh lin v . Li u , 849 F.2d 1205, 1207 ( 9th Cir. 1988)). I f we deter

mine that the evidenc e “is so one-sided that one par ty must prevail as a

matter of la

w,” the district court’s decision to gr ant summary judgme nt will be affir

med. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 251–52.05-2690

Ste ga ll, e t al . v . A ud

e tte , e t al

.

Gale Steg all has stated that she is leg ally blind, but for purposes of this appe al we a cce pt her 2 testimony as to the ca

r she obse rved. - 5 - B. Th e Evidence on the Rec ord F ails to Raise a Ge nui ne Issue of Mate rial F act as t o Whether M ot t U se d Exc e ssi ve F or c e Ag ain stSt e ga ll Stega ll’s Amende d Complaint allege s that Mott “pushed [her] aga inst a car parke d in the drivewa y , spray ed peppe r spray into he r fac e and ey es, and choc ked [sic] her by placingher ha

nds around [her] nec k.” J .A. at 58 (A m. Compl . ¶ 20.) Mott moved for summary judgme nt, arguing that
no jur y c ou ld fi nd , ba se d on the e vid e nc e in t he re c or d, that sh e wa s Ste g a ll’ s a ssa ila nt. Mo tt p oin ts to a complaint Steg all filed with the Detroit Police Depa rtment that states that she was attacke d by an off icer who left t h e s ce n e i n a ca r marke d with the word “ tactica l” and the numbe r “003419.” 2 Mott has produce d an ac tivity log, dated J une 19, 2002, showing that she was assig ned to a scout ca r marke d “003297,” a

nd that she and he r partner, Da niel Emery , took Ralph St eg all Sr. and Ralph Stega ll J r. t o the precinct after they wer e arreste d. The contents of the re port are confirme d in part by the testim o n y o f R alph Steg all Sr., who stated in his deposition that a fema le and male office r
wer e in the ca

r that took him to the police depa rtment. J .A. at 183 (Ralph St eg all Sr. Dep. 33:16–18, Fe b
. 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 )
. We f

in d th a t M o tt ’ s p r e s e n tati o n me e ts h e r b u r d e n o f p o in ti n g o u t an a b s e nce of evidenc e on the rec ord to suppor t a n essential element of Stega ll’s c laims. The burde n t h er efore sh if ts t o St e g a ll, wh o mus t pr e se nt e vid e nc e that wo uld a llo w a re a so na ble jur y to f ind that Mo tt d id attack he r, despite the c ontrary evidenc e on the r ecor d.
I n r e sp on se , St e g a ll h a s f

a ile d to subm it a

ny dir e c t e vid e nc e ide nti fy

ingMo tt a s h e r a ssa ila

nt. I n th e a bs e nc e of dir e c t evi de nc e , Steg a ll cla ims that summa ry jud g me nt mus t be d e nie d o n th e ba sis05-2690

Ste ga ll, e t al . v . A ud

e tte , e t al

.

- 6 - of two i nfer ence s from circumstantial evidenc e: first, that Mott was the only fema le offic er pr esent at the sce ne; and se cond, that, if Mott was the only fema le offic er present, she must have bee n the office r who attacked Steg all. I n support of this theory , Stega ll points to the Def endants’ r esponses to her inter ro gat o ries and doc ument reque sts. W hen aske d to identify eac h office r pre sent at the
scene of the incide nt, Defe ndants replied: “ Named de fenda nts wi th the exception of Def endant Audette.” J .A. at 223. When a sked to pr oduce “all activity logs prepa red in relation to the incident,” De fe nd ants pr od

uc e d a c tiv ity

log s p re pa

re d fo r Cha

nn e lls and B e llo mo, Em e ry and Mo tt, and

Sot o and Muczy

nski, claiming that “Def

endants have no other

activity logs in their posse ssion.” J .A. at 223. Be cause all of the other named de fenda

nts are ma le, Steg all claims that a jury could infer

that Mott was the only

fema le offic er at the scene , and ther efor e infe r that Mott must have been Steg all’s assailant.
Ste g a ll’ s p ro po se d in fe re nc e is un de rm ine d by he r ow n te sti mony . At he r d e po sit ion , St e g a ll de sc ri be d th e a tta c k s he su ff e re d in the fo llo wi ngwa

y :
And all of the sudde n she just pushed me up ag ainst the ca r and took he r rig ht hand an d s t ar t edch o k i n g m e a n d

m ac i n g m e i nm y

ey e, an d Is t ar t edcry i n g an d

s cr ea m i n g. And I couldn’t g et it out to stop, y ou choking me for nothi n g. . . . An d the other officer, she was standing right t here looking at her, a nd she didn’t say

stop doing that o r n o t h i n g.
J .A. at 200 (G ale Steg all Dep. 21:2–8, Feb. 11, 2003) (emphasis added)
. Stega ll’s use of the w ord “she” in the second sentenc e shows that she w as aw are of at lea st one additional fema le offic er at the sce ne of the incident. Steg al l ’s complaint to the police depa rtment also states that ther e we re05-2690

Ste ga ll, e t al . v . A ud

e tte , e t al

.

- 7 - a pp ro xima te ly

“ 10 of fi c e rs a t he r h ome in t

he dr ive wa

y .” J.A. a t 22 0. B e c a

us e the re are on ly

six named de fenda

nts admitted to have bee n at the scene , this fur ther sug g ests that other off icer s were prese nt. Even viewingthis evidence in the light most favor able to her , Stega ll’s own testimony and her c omplaint to the police contra d i ct t h e i n ference she would ask the jur y to draw. We a

re not require d to allow a ca se to g o to tr ial on acc ount of an implausible infer ence based on c ircumstantial evidenc e, see Adams , 3 1 F .3 d at 38 2, or wh e re the e vid e nce is “so on e -s ide d th a t on e pa rt y mus t p re vail as a matter of law .” Anderson , 4 7 7 U
. S. a t 2 5 1

– 5 2
. Co n s e qu e n tl y , w e find that no
rea sonable jury

could infer

from the e vidence on the re cord that Mott attacked Steg all.

CO NC LU SION
Ac c or din g ly , w e AF F I RM the or de r o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

awa rd ingsu mma

ry jud g me nt t o Mott.