Opinion ID: 2972888
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Chief Kitchen

Text: The district court denied Chief Kitchen’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity without prejudice because he had not been deposed at that time. (J.A. at 402.) The defendants have not opposed this ruling on appeal. Therefore, whether Chief Kitchen is entitled to qualified immunity is an issue best left for the district court. B. Plaintiff’s State Law Claims Alleging Gross Negligence 1. The Court’s Jurisdiction Over Defendants’ Appeals In Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331, 1342 -1344 (6th Cir. 1993), this court held that a defendant could not appeal a district court’s denial of governmental immunity pursuant to Michigan Compiled Laws § 691.1407 because it was not a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Walton, 995 F.2d at 1344. In its ruling, the court noted that § 691.1407 provided governmental immunity from liability only, not from suit. Walton, 995 F.2d at 1344. In a diversity case or a federal question action involving pendent state claims, Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), and Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), dictate that the court must look to state -15- immunity law to determine if a denial of immunity based on state law is appealable. Walton, 995 F.2d at 1343. In looking to Michigan law, the court noted that § 691.1407 codified the judicially created governmental immunity doctrine established in Ross v. Consumers Power Co., 363 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. 1984). In Reardon v. Department of Mental Health, 424 N.W.2d 248, 254 (1988), the Michigan Court of Appeals noted that the statute “codified the Ross definition practically verbatim,” except for abolishing Ross’s ministerial versus discretionary test for individual immunity. In Marrical v. Detroit News, Inc., 805 F.2d 169, 172 (6th Cir. 1986), this court noted that: Since we find no indication that Michigan’s doctrine of absolute or qualified immunity includes a right to be free from the exigencies of trial, we conclude that Michigan law affords no basis for imposing on litigants the burdens of an interlocutory appeal. The court’s decision turned on the fact that the language in Ross referred to immunity from liability, and “nowhere included among its reasons for immunizing governmental officials the need to protect against the disruptions of pre-trial proceedings such as discovery or the burdens of trial other than the risk of ultimate liability in damages.” Marrical, 805 F.2d at 173-74. Indeed, the text of § 691.1407 itself mentions immunity from liability only, not from suit.5 Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407. As the defendants note, however, the June 4, 2002, amendment to Michigan Court Rule 7.202(7)(a)(v) included as a “final order,” for purposes of appeal, “[a]n order denying governmental immunity to a governmental party, including a governmental agency, official, or employee.” Therefore, as the denial of governmental immunity is now a “final order” providing defendants with an appeal of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals, the issue is properly before the court on interlocutory appeal. 5 Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407(2) states, in pertinent part: Each ... employee of a governmental agency ... shall be immune from tort liability for injuries to persons or damages to property caused by the ... employee ... while in the course of employment ... while acting on behalf of a governmental agency if all of the following are met: -16- 2. The Individual Defendants’ Entitlement to Governmental Immunity The court will review a grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, using the same Rule 56(c) standard as the district court. Cox v. Kentucky Department of Transportation, 53 F.3d 146, 149 (6th Cir.1995) (citing Hansard v. Barrett, 980 F.2d 1059 (6th Cir.1992)). Summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, we view the factual evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. National Enterprises v. Smith, 114 F.3d 561, 563 (6th Cir. 1997). To prevail, the non-movant must show sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact. Klepper v. First Am. Bank, 916 F.2d 337, 341-42 (6th Cir. 1990) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient; “there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-movant].” Klepper, 916 F.2d at 341-42 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). Entry of summary judgment is appropriate “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. The tort liability of governmental employees under Michigan law is governed by the employee provision of the governmental immunity act, which states in pertinent part: Each ... employee of a governmental agency ... shall be immune from tort liability for injuries to persons or damages to property caused by the ... employee ... while in the course of employment ... while acting on behalf of a governmental agency if all of the following are met: (a) The ... employee ... is acting or reasonably believes he or she is acting within the scope of his or her authority. (b) The governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. (c) The ... employee’s ... conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage. As used in this subdivision, “gross negligence” means conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results. -17- Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407(2). The district court held that “the proximate cause issue is for the jury to decide and Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether their action or inaction was grossly negligent under the circumstances.” (J.A. at 404.) There is no question that (a) and (b) are satisfied in the case at hand. The question is, therefore, whether the defendants’ conduct amounted to gross negligence that was the proximate cause of Bradley’s death. In Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307, 317 (Mich. 2000), the Michigan Supreme Court overruled Dedes v. Asch, 521 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. 1994), “to the extent that it interpreted the phrase ‘the proximate cause’ in subdivision (c) to mean ‘a proximate cause.’” The Robinson Court reasoned that “[t]he Legislature’s use of the definite article ‘the’ clearly evinces an intent to focus on one cause.” Robinson, 613 N.W.2d at 317. The court ultimately held that “[t]he phrase ‘the proximate cause’ is best understood as meaning the one most immediate, efficient, and direct cause preceding an injury.” Robinson, 613 N.W.2d at 317. In Kruger v. White Lake Twp., 648 N.W.2d 660 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002), the Michigan Court of Appeals applied Robinson to a case involving the death of pretrial detainee. In Kruger, the decedent’s mother called the White Lake Township Police Department and requested that her daughter, Katherine Kruger, (“Kruger”), be taken into custody. Kruger, 648 N.W.2d at 661. Kruger’s mother informed the police that Kruger was intoxicated and that she feared that Kruger posed a danger to herself and others. Kruger, 648 N.W.2d at 661. Upon arresting Kruger, the officers learned that she had an outstanding warrant issued against her in the Bloomfield Township. Kruger, 648 N.W.2d at 661. After Kruger was arrested, the officers transported her to the White Lake Township Police Department to await her transfer to Bloomfield Township. Kruger, 648 N.W.2d at 661. Due to a lack of vacant holding cells, Kruger was handcuffed to a ballet bar in the station’s booking room. Kruger, 648 N.W.2d at 661-62. The officers left Kruger in the booking room unattended, where she was later able to free herself from the handcuffs and escape. Kruger, 648 N.W.2d at 662. As she fled from the police station, Kruger ran into traffic and was struck and killed by an unidentified vehicle. Kruger, 648 N.W.2d at 662. -18- Kruger’s representative subsequently filed suit alleging gross negligence on the part of the Township and its officers. Kruger, 648 N.W.2d at 662. The trial court dismissed Kruger’s claim and Kruger appealed. Kruger, 648 N.W.2d at 661. Citing the court’s holding in Robinson, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that, even assuming that the defendants’ conduct was grossly negligent, it was not the direct cause of Kruger’s death. Kruger, 648 N.W.2d at 663. The court noted that the more direct causes of Kruger’s death was her escaping from the police station, her running into traffic and her being hit by the car. Kruger, 648 N.W.2d at 663. In an unpublished opinion by the Michigan Court of Appeals, Scott v. Charter Twp. of Cinton, No. 233266, 2002 WL 31160298 (Mich. App. Sept. 27, 2002), the court applied the Robinson court’s analysis to claims against police officials for failing to prevent an inmate’s suicide. In Scott, the decedent hung himself with the drawstring of his pants after being arrested for a domestic dispute. Scott, 2002 WL 31160298, at . Following Scott’s suicide, the plaintiff filed suit against the Township, its police department and several individual officers. Scott, 2002 WL 31160298, at . The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and plaintiff appealed. Scott, 2002 WL 31160298, at . On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred because it had set forth sufficient facts to show that the officers were grossly negligent for refusing to obtain medical treatment for Scott, for disobeying department policies on how to treat suicidal inmates and for failing to find and remove the drawstring on Scott’s pants. Scott, 2002 WL 31160298, at -3. Applying the Robinson analysis, the court concluded that the one most immediate, efficient, and direct cause preceding his injury was Scott’s act of hanging himself. Scott, 2002 WL 31160298, at . Next, in Soles v. Ingham County, 316 F.Supp.2d 536 (W.D. Mich. 2004), the personal representative of the deceased inmate filed a complaint alleging that the inmate’s suicide was caused by the prison officials’ deliberate indifference, gross negligence and negligence. In Soles, the decedent, Frayer, was placed in an observation cell because he was known to be suicidal. Soles, 316 F. Supp. 2d at 539. Frayer was later returned to the general population after promising a social worker that he would not harm himself. Soles, 316 F. Supp. 2d at 540. On the evening of Frayer’s suicide, one of the guards noticed that Frayer was acting strange and stated that he had a “gut hunch” -19- that the Frayer might try to commit suicide at some point during the night. Soles, 316 F. Supp. 2d at 540. The guard did not request that Frayer be returned to an observation cell, and he failed to inform his replacement of his suspicions. Soles, 316 F. Supp. 2d at 540. Frayer successfully committed suicide later that night. Soles, 316 F. Supp. 2d at 540. After his death, Frayer’s personal representatives filed suit against the guard and social worker alleging that their actions constituted gross negligence. Soles, 316 F. Supp. 2d at 540-41. In granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the district court concluded that even if the defendants were deemed responsible for some nonfeasance amounting to gross negligence, liability could be imposed only if such nonfeasance was the proximate cause of Frayer’s death. Soles, 316 F. Supp. 2d at 546. The court went on to note that it was “undisputed that [Frayer] committed suicide while he was alone in his cell by hanging himself with a bed sheet.” Soles, 316 F. Supp. 2d at 546. The one most immediate, efficient and direct cause of his death was clearly not any nonfeasance by the defendants, but [Frayer’s] own volitional self-destructive act.” Soles, 316 F. Supp. 2d at 546. When viewed in light of these decisions, it is clear that the one most immediate, efficient and direct cause of Bradley’s death was his own act of hanging himself. Finally, the plaintiffs expert placed the ultimate blame not with the individual officers, but with the City’s failure to adequately train its employees. (J.A. at 173-74.) As noted above, the expert concluded that: Thomson indeed shoulders some blame for Bradley’s death. But Thomson was not prepared to handle a suicide risk. That blame rests with the city and the police department. The provision of “hollow” policies without explanation or training to all of the members responsible for prisoners is the overriding reason and moving force behind the deficiencies that allowed Bradley, a known and flagged suicide risk, to complete the act while a TV monitor displayed his actions to otherwise engaged, indifference and untrained employees. (J.A. at 173-74.) Therefore, as the actions of the individual defendants were not the one most immediate, efficient and direct cause of Bradley’s death, the district court erred when it denied defendants Simpson, White, Crouse, Thomson and Chief Kitchen’s motions for summary judgment on plaintiff’s state law claims. -20-