Opinion ID: 4468372
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: SOU Officers

Text: McKinley. As stated above, Bey must show discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. Bennett, 410 F.3d at 818. To establish discriminatory effect, Bey offered general arrest data for the two municipalities as a whole.8 Although the officers challenged these data as insufficient, the district court disagreed and determined that the statistics created a genuine issue of material fact as to discriminatory effect. What we may think of the sufficiency of the statistics to show discriminatory effect is no matter for this appeal. Our limited jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal precludes us from reexamining questions of evidentiary sufficiency. See Farm Labor, 308 F.3d at 536 (“Because this is an interlocutory appeal, we do not consider whether the plaintiffs’ evidence is sufficient to present a genuine issue for trial . . . that Trooper Keifer actually did target the plaintiffs in part because of their Hispanic appearance or that the [police force] does not investigate non-Hispanic motorists who are similarly situated to the plaintiffs.”). The same goes for McKinley’s intent. The district court addressed the question of McKinley’s intent having already determined that McKinley lacked reasonable suspicion to order the stop. We do not doubt that an officer’s lack of reasonable suspicion (or probable cause) may be relevant to the question whether the officer acted with a racially discriminatory intent. Cf. Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715, 1724 (2019) (noting, in the retaliatory arrest context, that the absence of probable cause may be “weighty evidence that the officer’s animus caused the arrest”). But a lack of reasonable suspicion alone is insufficient to show such intent. See, e.g., Ellison, 462 F.3d at 563 n.4 (holding that there was a “complete lack of evidence to support a racial profiling argument” even though the district court had expressly found that the officer’s stated justification for the stop was not credible); Gilani v. Matthews, 843 F.3d 342, 349 (8th Cir. 2016) (finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent where the plaintiff showed “that his citation and arrest were the result of an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of enforcement discretion,” but could “identify no statement . . . expressing a discriminatory intent 8Bey’s data purport to show that while Livonia’s population is only 3.4% black, 53% of those arrested by Livonia police are black. He presents similar figures for Canton, which according to Bey has a population that is 4.54% black, while 34% of total suspects arrested in Canton are black. He also presents statistics indicating that Livonia and Canton’s police officers themselves are overwhelmingly white. Nos. 18-1285/1376 Bey v. Falk, et al. Page 17 or any animus based upon his ethnicity”); Johnson v. Crooks, 326 F.3d 995, 1000 (8th Cir. 2003) (“‘We do not think . . . that the combination of an arbitrary stop . . . with a difference in race between the person stopped and the officer establishes a prima facie case of racial discrimination.’” (quoting Ford v. Wilson, 90 F.3d 245, 248–49 (7th Cir. 1996))); Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach, 341 F.3d 939, 948 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Essentially, Bingham argues that because he is African-American, the officer is white, and they disagree about the reasonableness of the traffic stop, these circumstances are sufficient to raise an inference of racial discrimination. We disagree that this is sufficient to state an equal protection claim.”); cf. Gardenhire v. Schubert, 205 F.3d 303, 320 (6th Cir. 2000) (“The [plaintiffs’] basic argument is that the police had no logical reason to prosecute them rather than Ms. Della Sala, so the arrest must have been motivated by their interracial marriage. While such reasoning would be sufficient in establishing a prima facie Title VII case, the standard for a selective enforcement claim is much more demanding.”). Here, in addition to finding a lack of reasonable suspicion, the district court determined that “McKinley’s explanation for why he started following the minivan in the first place,” his failure to “stop the minivan once they learned of the ‘no record’ plates,” and McKinley’s suggestion that he “did not know the race of Plaintiff and his friends prior to the Canton Walmart” created a genuine issue of material fact with respect to McKinley’s intent. These factual disputes, and the inferences that may be drawn therefrom, are beyond our jurisdiction on appeal. DiLuzio, 796 F.3d at 609. Indeed, we have held that the “limitation on our appellate jurisdiction applies with particular force to evidence sufficiency questions related to a [person’s] intent, such as whether a [person] acted with a discriminatory purpose.” Farm Labor, 308 F.3d at 537; see also Diluzio, 796 F.3d at 609 (stating that we lack jurisdiction to consider “fact-based (‘evidence sufficiency’) appeals [that] challenge directly the plaintiff’s allegations (and the district court’s acceptance) of what actually occurred or why an action was taken or omitted, who did it, or nothing more than whether the evidence could support a jury’s finding that particular conduct occurred” (alterations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added)). As a result, we lack jurisdiction to consider McKinley’s challenge to Bey’s equal protection claim. Nos. 18-1285/1376 Bey v. Falk, et al. Page 18 McAteer and Eisenbeis. The district court grouped McAteer and Eisenbeis with McKinley when discussing Bey’s equal protection claim. That was legal error. “Where . . . the district court is faced with multiple defendants asserting qualified immunity defenses, the court should consider whether each individual defendant had a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Bishop v. Hackel, 636 F.3d 757, 767 (6th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Phillips v. Roane County, 534 F.3d 531, 542 (6th Cir. 2008)). In such circumstances, “we must make an individualized assessment of each [officer], based on [Bey’s] version of the facts.” Id. When each officer’s conduct is considered individually, we conclude that McAteer and Eisenbeis are entitled to qualified immunity on Bey’s equal protection claim. Unlike McKinley, McAteer’s involvement was limited and based almost entirely on the direction of others. She started following the van because of McKinley; she testified: “So when Sergeant McKinley says he is following a vehicle, at that point, I’m going to head that way in that direction of where he’s at so I can assist him.” McKinley “directed [her] to go inside the [Canton] Wal-Mart.” Once inside, she relayed her observations of Bey’s conduct to McKinley at his request. She testified, “I imagine [McKinley] was asking me for information because I was so new at surveillance at that point in time.” McAteer did not direct the stop. Bey does not explain how this conduct evinces discriminatory intent. Nor for that matter does Bey even discuss McAteer’s individual liability under the Equal Protection Clause. (The district court’s analysis suffered from the same fault.) Bey says only that “Defendants had no lawful reason to profile, scrutinize, target, or seize Mr. Bey.” But as noted previously, that a stop violated the Fourth Amendment may be one factor in determining whether race motivated the stop; but it is not alone sufficient. And, in any event, McAteer’s conduct did not violate Bey’s Fourth Amendment rights. Because Bey has not shown that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether McAteer acted with discriminatory intent, McAteer is entitled to qualified immunity. For the same reasons, Eisenbeis is entitled to qualified immunity on Bey’s equal protection claim. Like McAteer, Eisenbeis’s conduct did not violate Bey’s Fourth Amendment rights. And Eisenbeis’s involvement was even more minimal than McAteer’s, limited to nothing more than surveillance on the public streets at the direction of McKinley. Bey has not put forth Nos. 18-1285/1376 Bey v. Falk, et al. Page 19 any evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Eisenbeis harbored discriminatory intent.