Opinion ID: 2981457
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tight Handcuffs

Text: This court has stated that in order to reach a jury on a claim of tight handcuffing, “a plaintiff must offer sufficient evidence . . . that: (1) he or she complained the handcuffs were too tight; (2) the officer ignored those complaints; and (3) the plaintiff experienced ‘some physical injury’ resulting from the handcuffing.” Morrison v. Bd. of Trs. of Green Twp., 583 F.3d 394, 401 (6th Cir. 2009). The magistrate judge found that Frodge did not maintain that he complained that his handcuffs were too tight or that he suffered some physical injury from the handcuffing. Plaintiffs have not refuted this finding. Therefore, because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate these elements, this court affirms the district court’s judgment in favor of Simmons. B. Plaintiffs’ § 1983 Supervisory Liability Claims Against Hall, Morgan, and Kunkel Plaintiffs argue that Hall, Morgan, and Kunkel are liable for constitutional violations, allegedly committed by Simmons, based on a theory of supervisory liability. The magistrate judge found Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on these claims because under any of the theories asserted by Plaintiffs, their claims failed. This court held in McQueen v. Beecher Cmty. Schools, 433 F.3d 460, 470 (6th Cir. 2006), that “a prerequisite of supervisory liability under § 1983 is unconstitutional conduct by a subordinate of the supervisor.” In order to show supervisory liability, a plaintiff must “show that the [supervisor] at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending officers.” Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting Hays v. Jefferson Cnty, Ky., 668 F.2d 869, 874 (6th Cir. 1982)). The court also stated that, “a supervisory official’s failure to supervise, control or train the offending individual is not actionable unless the supervisor ‘either encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly 21 participated in it.’” Id. at 300 (quoting Hays, 668 F.2d at 874); see also Cardinal v. Metrish, 564 F.3d 794, 802-03 (6th Cir. 2009) (“We have held that, even if a plaintiff can prove a violation of his constitutional rights, his § 1983 claim must fail against a supervisory official unless ‘the supervisor encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it.’”) (quoting Combs v. Wilkinson, 315 F.3d 548, 558 (6th Cir. 2002)). The magistrate judge found that Plaintiffs’ claims of supervisory liability failed as a matter of law because she determined that Simmons did not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Because this court also finds there were no constitutional violations, Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law. Nevertheless, even if Simmons had violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, their supervisory liability claims would still fail. Plaintiffs argue that Hall, Morgan, and Kunkel ratified Simmons’s conduct by failing to investigate the incident and failing to discipline Simmons for making an invalid arrest and using excessive force. This is insufficient to make supervisors liable for their subordinates’ conduct. Plaintiffs must present evidence that Hall, Morgan, and Kunkel “did more than play a passive role in the alleged violation . . . . Supervisory liability under § 1983 cannot attach where the allegation of liability is based upon a mere failure to act.” Bass v. Robinson, 167 F.3d 1041, 1048 (6th Cir. 1999). Here, the claims asserted, failure to discipline and failure to act, do not constitute “active constitutional behavior” as required and thus, are not actionable. Id. Further, Kunkel did conduct an investigation. However, even an inadequate investigation is still insufficient to trigger liability because a supervisory liability claim “cannot be based on simple negligence.” Leach v. Shelby Cnty. Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1246 (6th Cir. 1989). In addition, there is no claim by Plaintiffs that the 22 failure to investigate was part of an ongoing pattern by Kunkel. In any event, Kunkel’s investigation had no bearing on the alleged violation of Plaintiffs’ rights, as Plaintiffs have asserted claims for false arrest and excessive use of force, that occurred prior to the investigation. Thus, Hall, Morgan, and Kunkel did not engage in any conduct that violated Plaintiffs’ rights, and Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for supervisor liability based on ratification. Consequently, this court affirms the district court’s judgment in favor of Hall, Morgan, and Kunkel. C. Plaintiffs’ § 1983 Municipal Liability Claims Against the City of Newport and Simmons (in his Official Capacity) Plaintiffs assert the following three bases for their municipal liability claims: (1) the City failed to establish or enforce policies; (2) the City ratified Simmons’s unconstitutional behavior; and (3) the City inadequately trained Simmons. The magistrate judge found that Plaintiffs’ claims failed under all three theories. However, on appeal, Plaintiffs only argue that it was an error to determine that they could not maintain a claim for municipal liability based upon a failure to adequately train. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the City is liable under § 1983 municipal liability because the City failed to adequately train its officers as demonstrated by Simmons’s testimony that he does not always announce that he is a police officer and Kunkel’s failure to investigate. To prevail on a claim against a municipality under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish both: (1) the deprivation of a constitutional right; and (2) the city’s responsibility for that violation. See Howard v. City of Girard, 346 F. App’x 49, 51 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Ellis ex rel. Pendergrass v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 455 F.3d 690, 700 (6th Cir. 2006)). A plaintiff suing a municipality must identify an unconstitutional policy or custom in order to prevail on a § 1983 claim. See id. A policy that fails to adequately train an employee, such as a police officer, may “serve as the basis for § 1983 23 liability only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989). To establish liability under City of Canton, “the plaintiff must prove, that the training program at issue is inadequate to the tasks that officers must perform; that the inadequacy is the result of the city's deliberate indifference; and that the inadequacy is ‘closely related to’ or ‘actually caused’ the plaintiff's injury.” Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036, 1046 (6th Cir. 1992) (citing Hill v. McIntyre, 884 F.2d 271, 275 (6th Cir. 1989)). Plaintiffs assert that they have demonstrated a failure to train by the City based upon the fact that Simmons did not announce his status as a police officer to Frodge and Burbrink when he told them to “knock it off,” and the fact that he admitted that he generally finds it unnecessary to do so when he is in full police uniform. Plaintiffs argue that their failure to adequately train theory is also based upon Kunkel’s failure to perform any investigation into the use of force. The magistrate judge found that this claim failed because Plaintiffs “do not explain in what manner the City’s training program, or Simmons’s training specifically, was inadequate, nor [do they] provide evidence of recurring complaints or any other complaint of a constitutional violation . . . .” Plaintiffs do not identify any alleged deficiencies in the training provided to Simmons or Kunkel. The Supreme Court has stated that the fact “[t]hat a particular officer may be unsatisfactorily trained will not alone suffice to fasten liability on the city, for the officer’s shortcomings may have resulted from factors other than a faulty training program.” City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 390-91. Further, “[i]t may be, for example, that an otherwise sound program has occasionally been negligently administered” or that an injury could have been avoided if an officer had better or more training. Id. at 391. However, neither of these circumstances will be sufficient to hold the City liable. Id. Plaintiffs merely allege 24 that Simmons and Kunkel, and possibly Markus, may have been inadequately trained, but Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate or explain how the City’s training program is insufficient or how the allegedly wrongful actions of the officers were caused by a defect in the City’s training program. Because Plaintiffs have failed to meet the requisite standard, their § 1983 municipal liability claims must fail. Therefore, this court affirms the district court’s judgment in favor of the City and Simmons. D. Plaintiffs’ State Law Claims Plaintiffs object to the dismissal of the state law claims because they assert that constitutional violations have occurred, and therefore supplemental jurisdiction is properly exercised over these claims. This court reviews a district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction for abuse of discretion. See Robert N. Clemens Trust v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., 485 F.3d 840, 853 (6th Cir. 2007). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. The district court’s decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction “depends on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254 (6th Cir. 1996) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The district court had original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for false arrest, excessive force, and supervisory and municipal liability and could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. However, this court has stated that “‘in the usual case in which all federal law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.’” Robert N. Clemens Trust, 485 F.3d at 853 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all of Plaintiffs’ 25 federal claims. Similarly, we have held that there were no constitutional violations and that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Thus, Plaintiffs’ argument that the district court should have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because constitutional violations have occurred is not well-taken. Plaintiffs point to no other factors that would support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 over their state law claims in light of the federal claims being dismissed. Consequently, this court finds the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.