Opinion ID: 2981848
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: The facts of this case are clearly in dispute, and the appeal is frivolous. Both the magistrate judge and the district court are in agreement that Riley is not entitled to immunity. The parties give almost completely contradictory versions of the events that led to the tasering and arrest of plaintiff Lyttle v. Riley No. 12-1295 Kahlil Lyttle at his home. Although Riley claims in his brief that he accepts plaintiff’s version of the facts for purposes of this appeal, he goes on to dispute nearly every factual statement put forth by plaintiff. No audio or video of the encounter exists. We will briefly recite several of the discrepancies. Shortly after midnight on May 19, 2009, Redford Township Police were sent to the residence of plaintiff and his then-girlfriend, Sarah Thomas. Redford Police had received a 911 call from a female at the residence stating that she was fighting with her boyfriend and then she hung up. Thomas later testified that she made the 911 call because she was concerned for the safety of plaintiff. Trial Tr. at 7-9, People v. Lyttle, 09-99770 OM (17th Dist. Ct. for the Cty. of Wayne [Mich.] Aug. 24, 2009).1 When police arrived, plaintiff and Thomas were standing on an enclosed porch at the front of the house. The evidence is in dispute as to whether officers standing on the sidewalk could see inside the enclosed porch where plaintiff and Thomas were standing. The police say they could see into the porch and they saw plaintiff pulling Thomas against her will towards the inside of the house from the porch. Plaintiff says they could not have seen anything because the blinds were drawn. In any event, plaintiff and Thomas both testified that Thomas went into the house willingly with plaintiff and that he did not force or threaten her. Trial Tr. at 13, 35-36. The police said they wanted to talk to Thomas to make sure she was safe, so Thomas went outside and plaintiff went into the house. Even though Thomas was in police custody, the police subsequently tried to force their way 1 Thomas testified at Lyttle’s criminal trial for domestic assault and battery and obstructing and resisting a police officer arising out of the events that gave rise to this civil suit. Citations to the transcript of this trial will be referred to as “Trial Tr.”. 2 Lyttle v. Riley No. 12-1295 into the house because they say that plaintiff refused to open the door. The police report of the incident says that the police wanted to get into the house because they feared for the safety of others in the house. The report, however, says that Thomas told them no one else was in the house. See Redford Police Department Report at 1; Cracchiolo Case Supplemental Report at 1. The police claim that as they were forcing open the front door, plaintiff fled out the back door. Defendant Riley was stationed at the back of the house. He claims that plaintiff came out the back of the house with his hands in his pockets and ignored Riley’s command to remove his hands from his pockets and lay down. Riley then tasered plaintiff and he fell to the ground. Riley Case Supplemental Police Report; Riley Aff. at ¶¶ 8-10. In contrast, plaintiff testified that he tried to unlock the door when the police started breaking it down, but he could not open it because it became jammed when the police started kicking it. Plaintiff claims he told the police through a window that he would come outside through the back door. Plaintiff testified that he came out the back door shirtless and with his hands in the air to show he was unarmed. Plaintiff agrees that Riley told him to get on the ground, but plaintiff says that Riley tasered him before he could comply. Plaintiff says he was then tasered a second time by Riley and did not fall to the ground until Riley tasered him a third time. Plaintiff says he lost consciousness after the third taser and seriously injured his back and neck when he hit the ground. Lyttle Dep. at 20-30. Plaintiff was charged with domestic assault and battery, as well as resisting and obstructing police. He was bound over for trial and subsequently acquitted of all charges. He then filed the complaint below, asserting claims of excessive force, false arrest and false imprisonment under Section 1983, and malicious prosecution, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional 3 Lyttle v. Riley No. 12-1295 distress and gross negligence under state law. He also brought a claim of municipal liability against Redford Township for failure to train its police officers. The district court denied Riley’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of excessive force, false arrest and false imprisonment,2 and it also denied qualified and governmental immunity to Riley. Riley filed this interlocutory appeal, contending that the district court erred in denying him qualified immunity and governmental immunity on the facts alleged by plaintiff.