Opinion ID: 2829693
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Qualified Immunity Claims

Text: To determine whether qualified immunity applies, we use a two-step analysis: “1) viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we determine whether the allegations give rise to a constitutional violation; and 2) we assess whether the right was clearly established at the time of the incident.” Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 472 (6th Cir. 2013); see also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). We address the claims of excessive force and the claim of a failure to train in turn.
Plaintiffs’ complaint more than sufficiently alleges conduct by Schmeltz and Gray that violated Benton’s constitutional right to be free of excessive force. The complaint raised claims under “the Fourth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments,” but on appeal all parties agree that Nos. 14-3134/3136/3137 Coley, et al. v. Lucas Cnty., et al. Page 7 the Fourteenth Amendment governs Plaintiffs’ claims because he was a pretrial detainee at the time of his injury and death. Excessive force claims can be resolved under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments—the applicable amendment depends on the plaintiff’s status at the time of the incident: a free citizen in the process of being arrested or seized; a convicted prisoner; or someone in “gray area[s]” around the two. Burgess, 735 F.3d at 472; Phelps v. Coy, 286 F.3d 295, 299 (6th Cir. 2002). When a free citizen claims that a government actor used excessive force during the process of an arrest, seizure, or investigatory stop, we perform a Fourth Amendment inquiry into what was objectively “reasonable” under the circumstances. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989); Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673, 680 (6th Cir. 2008). These Fourth Amendment protections extend through police booking until the completion of a probable cause hearing. Aldini v. Johnson, 609 F.3d 858, 866-67 (6th Cir. 2010). When convicted prisoners bring claims of excessive force, we turn to the Eighth Amendment, which forbids the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” that constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment,” and specifically conduct that is malicious and sadistic. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5, 7 (1992) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986)); United States v. Budd, 496 F.3d 517, 53132 (6th Cir. 2007). To violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of free citizens not subject to search or seizure, the conduct of law enforcement officials must “shock[] the conscience,” whether it be “malicious and sadistic” behavior in the context of a “fluid” and “dangerous” situation, or “deliberate indifference” when there is “reasonable opportunity to deliberate” before taking action. Darrah v. City of Oak Park, 255 F.3d 301, 306 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846-53 (1998). Until very recently, it was unclear which standard applied to excessive force claims brought by pretrial detainees. The Supreme Court has recently clarified, however, that when assessing pretrial detainees’ excessive force claims we must inquire into whether the plaintiff shows “that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015). The inquiry is highly fact-dependent, and must take into account the “perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. It should also account Nos. 14-3134/3136/3137 Coley, et al. v. Lucas Cnty., et al. Page 8 for “the ‘legitimate interests that stem from [the government’s] need to manage the facility in which the individual is detained,’” id., and defer when appropriate to “‘policies and practices that in th[e] judgment’ of jail officials ‘are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.’” Id. (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 540, 547 (1979)). The Court further instructs: Considerations such as the following may bear on the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the force used: the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used; the extent of the plaintiff’s injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting. Id. This list is not exclusive. Kingsley also reaffirms that pretrial detainees cannot be subjected to “the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment,” id. (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 395 n.10) precisely because they “cannot be punished at all,” id. at 2475. In light of this Fourteenth Amendment standard and the facts alleged in the complaint, Plaintiffs’ excessive force claims should proceed. The alleged conduct of Schmeltz and Gray was knowing or purposeful and “objectively unreasonable,” and each used force that “amount[ed] to punishment” of Benton. Id. at 2473. Taking into account all of the circumstances of that day, including the legitimate interests of law enforcement in preserving order and discipline, the allegations that Schmeltz and Gray inflicted gratuitous pain on Benton while he was handcuffed, culminating in his death, establish valid claims that both officers violated Benton’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. We review the claims as to each defendant separately.
Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Schmeltz violated Benton’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force. We have long recognized that a spontaneous assault by a prison guard on an inmate is grounds for an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. Pelfrey v. Chambers, 43 F.3d 1034, 1037 (6th Cir. 1995); Moore v. Holbrook, 2 F.3d 697, 700-01 (6th Cir. 1993) (holding that an inmate’s allegations that he was handcuffed in his cell and then beaten by prison guards would constitute a valid Eighth Amendment claim). Similarly, where an arrestee poses Nos. 14-3134/3136/3137 Coley, et al. v. Lucas Cnty., et al. Page 9 no threat to others and is not trying to escape, an “unprovoked and unnecessary blow” violates the Fourth Amendment. McDowell v. Rogers, 863 F.2d 1302, 1307 (6th Cir. 1988). We have held that throwing an unresisting, handcuffed arrestee to the floor and subsequently banging his head against the floor constitutes excessive force. Phelps v. Coy, 286 F.3d 295, 301-02 (6th Cir. 2002); Dugan v. Brooks, 818 F.2d 513, 516-17 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding that spontaneously striking an arrestee on the head, knocking him to the floor and causing serious injury, would violate his Fourth Amendment rights); Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 385 (6th Cir. 1994) (holding that continuing to spray mace in the face of an incapacitated arrestee would constitute excessive force). Because the Fourteenth Amendment, like the Fourth Amendment, must look to whether the force used was objectively unreasonable, the inquiry in both contexts focuses on the force itself rather than the injury. We have long held that a plaintiff may “allege use of excessive force even where the physical contact between the parties did not leave excessive marks or cause extensive physical damage.” Ingram v. City of Columbus, 185 F.3d 579, 597 (6th Cir. 1999). “[T]he ‘extent of the injury inflicted’ is not ‘crucial to an analysis of a claim for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.’” Morrison v. Bd. of Tr. of Green Twp., 583 F.3d 394, 407 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Baskin v. Smith, 50 F. App’x 731, 737 n.2 (6th Cir. 2002)). We look instead to whether “gratuitous violence” has been inflicted. Pigram ex rel. Pigram v. Chaudoin, 199 F. App’x 509, 513 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Phelps, 286 F.3d at 302). Even so, “[n]ot every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates the Fourth Amendment,” and the same principle applies to the Fourteenth Amendment. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Schmeltz’s shove of Benton—who was handcuffed, in a belly chain and leg irons—so that he fell and hit the wall and cement floor, violated Benton’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Schmeltz argues that Plaintiffs did not allege sufficient injury, but the complaint alleges that the shove caused him to fall “striking his head on the wall and falling straight to the floor,” “unable in any way to break his fall.” Moreover, we look primarily to whether gratuitous force was applied. Such force is clearly alleged here: without provocation, Schmeltz shoved the fully restrained Benton hard enough that he fell straight down onto cement, powerless to help Nos. 14-3134/3136/3137 Coley, et al. v. Lucas Cnty., et al. Page 10 himself. Schmeltz’s argument that he was acting in a good faith effort to restore discipline rings hollow as nothing in the facts alleged suggests a loss of discipline or order at the time the shove occurred. On the contrary, the complaint suggests that Benton was hardly in any condition to cause a disruption, having recently been treated for seizures and then beaten and maced by Lucas County employees—including Schmeltz—at the hospital, from which he was brought to the jail in a wheelchair, fully restrained and subdued. Plaintiffs also allege that Schmeltz’s action was borne of his “frustration” with Benton’s prior resistant behavior in the hospital, leading to a reasonable inference that the shove was the kind of gratuitous punishment that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids. Having determined that Schmeltz violated Benton’s constitutional rights, we now turn to whether the law regarding the use of gratuitous force on a restrained detainee is clearly established. To satisfy this second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Clemente v. Vaslo, 679 F.3d 482, 490 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). The key inquiry is whether a defendant claiming qualified immunity “was on notice that his alleged actions were unconstitutional.” United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 768 F.3d 464, 485 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Grawey v. Drury, 567 F.3d 302, 313 (6th Cir. 2009)). The inquiry “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Clemente, 679 F.3d at 490 (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004)). We look first to Supreme Court decisions, then Sixth Circuit case law in order to determine if the right claimed was clearly established when the events occurred. Clemente, 679 F.3d at 490. The plaintiff “has the burden of showing that a right is clearly established,” while the defendant “carries the burden of showing that the challenged act was objectively reasonable in light of the law existing at the time.” Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 494 (6th Cir. 2009). At the time of the incident, pretrial detainees had a clearly established right not to be gratuitously assaulted while fully restrained and subdued. See Pelfrey, 43 F.3d at 1037. Under the Fourteenth, Fourth, or Eighth Amendments, assaults on subdued, restrained and nonresisting detainees, arrestees, or convicted prisoners are impermissible. Id.; Phelps, 286 F.3d at 301-02 Nos. 14-3134/3136/3137 Coley, et al. v. Lucas Cnty., et al. Page 11 (citing cases). The facts alleged show that Schmeltz assaulted the fully restrained Benton so that he fell and hit his head on the cement floor. Schmeltz then attempted to cover up the assault by filing false reports and lying to federal investigators after Benton’s death. These actions reasonably lead us to conclude that Schmeltz violated clearly established law and was “on notice that his alleged actions were unconstitutional.” United Pet Supply, Inc., 768 F.3d at 485. Schmeltz’s argument that his actions did not violate clearly established law fails.
Plaintiffs have also plausibly alleged that Gray violated Benton’s constitutional rights. The use of a chokehold on an unresisting—and even an initially resistant—detainee violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440, 1447 (5th Cir. 1993). It is a constitutional violation for law enforcement officials to use violent physical force “totally without penological justification.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981)). A chokehold rendering an arrestee unconscious and causing his death constitutes excessive force under Fourth Amendment standards. United States v. Livoti, 196 F.3d 322, 327 (2d Cir. 1999); Papp v. Snyder, 81 F. Supp. 2d 852, 857 (N.D. Ohio 2000) (holding that “[n]o reasonable officer would use a choke hold and a carotid sleeper hold on a suspect who is both handcuffed and restrained by four other individuals”); see also Haynes v. Marshall, 887 F.2d 700, 703 (6th Cir. 1989) (holding that qualified immunity was clearly inappropriate where prison officials beat a disruptive inmate in need of anti-psychotic medication and left him to die). Gray’s actions violated Benton’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. Having had time to consider his options while escorting Benton to the medical cells, and while attempting to remove Benton’s multiple restraints, Gray chose to act in a manner that Plaintiffs plausibly allege was the product of frustration and anger, designed to punish and cause harm rather than a good faith effort to maintain discipline. Although Benton admittedly began to “squirm around” and struggle, at the point Gray choked him Benton had been placed on the bed, handcuffed to it, and was surrounded by multiple officers. In that situation, force as extreme as a chokehold was excessive and impermissible, and by the point Gray heard Benton choke and gurgle and another officer urged Gray to release the chokehold, Gray’s conduct was clearly objectively Nos. 14-3134/3136/3137 Coley, et al. v. Lucas Cnty., et al. Page 12 unreasonable. Gray’s actions after the fact—telling other officers to leave the medical cell after Benton was rendered unconscious and his restraints removed, failing to seek medical help, and refusing to mention his use of a chokehold on incident reports—also lead to the inference that Gray was aware he had violated the law and sought to avoid liability. Where, as here, a law enforcement official inflicts pain and punishment—even on a resistant detainee—to the point of death and then leaves that individual to die, he violates that detainee’s constitutional rights. See Haynes, 887 F.2d at 703. Having determined that Gray violated Benton’s constitutional rights, we turn again to whether the right in question—to be free from deadly physical force such as a chokehold while fully restrained—was clearly established, providing Gray notice that “what he [was] doing violate[d] that right.” Clemente, 679 F.3d at 490 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). Our cases make it abundantly clear that it is constitutionally impermissible to abuse a shackled prisoner to the point of death and then leave him to die in his cell. Haynes, 887 F.2d at 703. Chokeholds are objectively unreasonable where an individual is already restrained or there is no danger to others. Livoti, 196 F.3d at 327; Papp, 81 F. Supp. 2d at 857. Gray’s actions as described in the complaint violated clearly established law: Gray put Benton in a chokehold and continued to choke him even after Gray heard him gurgling and another officer told Gray to stop, and Gray left Benton in his cell without medical care. Gray’s efforts to hide evidence of his actions, by filing false reports and lying to federal investigators, reasonably lead to the conclusion that he knew he had violated the law. In short, like Schmeltz, Gray behaved like someone who “was on notice that his alleged actions were unconstitutional.” United Pet Supply, Inc., 768 F.3d at 485. Gray’s argument that his actions did not violate clearly established law thus also fails.
Telb’s appeal of this § 1983 claim addresses only the allegation that he individually failed to train and supervise his staff, particularly Schmeltz and Gray. Telb argues that Schmeltz and Gray satisfy both prongs of the qualified immunity test—their actions did not violate Benton’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force and the right claimed was not clearly Nos. 14-3134/3136/3137 Coley, et al. v. Lucas Cnty., et al. Page 13 established. Telb’s entire analysis is based on the argument that because Schmeltz and Gray are eligible for qualified immunity for their actions, it necessarily follows that he, too, should be eligible for qualified immunity regarding the failure to train and supervise claim. Because we find that Schmeltz and Gray do not satisfy the requirements for qualified immunity, Telb’s argument fails. We also review the claim against him directly. A § 1983 claim of personal liability for a failure to train and supervise differs from a § 1983 claim against a municipality for a failure to train and supervise. In order to establish personal liability for a failure to train and supervise [t]here must be a showing that the supervisor encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it. At a minimum, a § 1983 plaintiff must show that a supervisory official at least implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate. Taylor v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr., 69 F.3d 76, 81 (6th Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original) (quoting Bradley v. Bellamy, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984)). Plaintiffs allege that Telb had a duty to train and supervise employees of the Sheriff’s Department to avoid the use of excessive force and to ensure that the medical needs of persons in the Sheriff’s custody were met. They then allege that Telb failed to train and supervise staff regarding the proper use of force and failed to investigate properly allegations of excessive force. This failure to train and supervise specifically included a failure to train on “the use of a chokehold and the injuries derived therefrom” which action resulted in Benton’s “injuries and death.” Plaintiffs also allege that Telb had “full knowledge of the assault on Carlton Benton . . . but nonetheless intentionally and deliberately made false statements to federal officials about [his] knowledge of Defendant Schmeltz’s assault and Defendant Gray’s chokehold and the deliberate failure to provide medical attention to Benton.” These allegations are sufficient to show that Plaintiffs have established a valid claim under § 1983, insofar as they have shown that Telb “at least implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate” when he helped Schmeltz and Gray to cover up their unconstitutional actions. Taylor, 69 F.3d at 81 (quoting Bradley, 729 F.2d at 421). Given Schemltz and Gray’s constitutional violations as well as the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ allegations Nos. 14-3134/3136/3137 Coley, et al. v. Lucas Cnty., et al. Page 14 in establishing Telb’s potential personal liability for his failure to train and supervise under § 1983, Telb has not shown entitlement to qualified immunity on this claim.