Opinion ID: 6341841
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Circumstances Beyond Plaintiff’s Control

Text: In addition to alleging a constitutional violation against every Defendant, Grinnell must also prove that his inability to identify the defendants is a result of circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control. Pineda, 977 F.3d at 493. Defendants argue that based on Grinnell’s depositions, he has the ability to identify the officers, but is simply refusing to do so. In general, appeals may only be taken from final judgments. Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 200 (1999); 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Ordinarily, denials of summary judgment are not final decisions. DiLuzio v. Village of Yorkville, 796 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2015). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has permitted interlocutory appeals of “a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). Stated differently, appeals from a denial of qualified immunity are 13 No. 21-2748, Grinnell v. City of Taylor, Mich., et al. limited to “‘purely legal’ questions.” Ouza v. City of Dearborn Heights, 969 F.3d 265, 276 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 528 n.9). “[T]o bring an interlocutory appeal of a qualified immunity ruling, the defendant must be willing to concede the plaintiff’s version of the facts for purposes of the appeal.” Jefferson, 594 F.3d at 459. When a “defendant’s qualified immunity appeal is based solely on his or her disagreement with the plaintiff’s facts,” this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the argument. Ouza, 969 F.3d at 277. Grinnell maintains that he cannot identify the officers who allegedly used excessive force. He relies on his testimony, in which he repeatedly stated that Defendants obstructed his ability to identify the Defendants. (See, e.g, Grinnell Dep. I, R. 72-9, Page ID #1317 (“I was trying to cover my face.”); Id., Page ID #1318 (“My face was in the dirt”); Grinnell Dep. II, R. 72-10, Page ID #1361 (“I was being punched in the face at the time while my head was being smashed in the pavers.”); Id., Page ID #1362 (“They were smashing my face in the ground”); Id., Page ID #1364 (“The other people were punching me in the face and holding my head down.”).) The district court extensively considered the depositions and evidence in this case and specifically found that “Grinnell cannot identify any of the officers by name.” (Op. & Order, R. 80, Page ID #2224.) The court went on to find that “the actions of the officers prevented him from being able to identify which officers took what actions.” (Id., Page ID #2226.) Despite these clear factual findings, Defendants argue that Grinnell may be able to identify the officers. Whether Grinnell can or cannot identify the officers is the exact type of factual dispute unsuitable for an interlocutory appeal of a qualified immunity ruling. To the extent Defendants seek to challenge this factual finding, we lack jurisdiction. Ouza, 969 F.3d at 277. To get around the obvious lack of jurisdiction, Defendants argue that the district court erred by not considering all the evidence. This is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, an essential 14 No. 21-2748, Grinnell v. City of Taylor, Mich., et al. characteristic of appeals of denials of qualified immunity is that defendants must accept the plaintiff’s version of facts. Jefferson, 594 F.3d at 459. Defendants claim to accept Grinnell’s theory of the case, yet they extensively argue why Grinnell’s version of events is incorrect. Defendants raised this factual dispute before the district court, and the court rejected their argument, finding Grinnell could not identify the officers. This appeal is not the proper method to rehash factual disputes. Second, even if the Court were to consider Defendants’ argument, all the evidence on which they rely was fully considered by the district court. Defendants point to a few isolated statements Grinnell made during his deposition. But the district court’s opinion denying Defendants qualified immunity extensively considered Grinnell’s deposition testimony. The fact that the district court did not mention a specific statement does not suggest the court failed to consider the evidence. Indeed, a review of the district court’s order denying qualified immunity shows the district court thoroughly considered Grinnell’s testimony. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider whether Grinnell can identify which Defendants committed which acts.