Opinion ID: 4013288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Michigan State-Law Claims

Text: Rucinski asserts two state-law claims against McCann and Beltz—that McCann and Beltz committed assault and battery when they used force against Rucinski in the garage; and that McCann and Beltz were grossly negligent when they cornered Rucinski in the garage and used force against him. The district court granted summary judgment to McCann and Beltz on both claims. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Sch., 469 F.3d 479, 486 (6th Cir. 2006). First, Rucinski claims that McCann and Beltz committed assault and battery when they used force against Rucinski in the garage. In defense, McCann and Beltz argue that they are entitled to immunity from Rucinski’s claim. Under Michigan law, a police officer who relies on immunity as an affirmative defense from a suit alleging an intentional tort bears the burden of raising and proving his immunity. Latits v. Phillips, 826 N.W.2d 190, 194 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Odom v. Wayne County., 760 N.W.2d 217, 227 (Mich. 2008)). To establish immunity, the officer must show: (a) The acts were undertaken during the course of employment and the employee was acting, or reasonably believed that he was acting, within the scope of his authority, (b) the acts were undertaken in good faith, or were not undertaken with malice, and (c) the acts were discretionary, as opposed to ministerial. -9- Case No. 15-1844, Rucinski v. County of Oakland Odom, 760 N.W.2d at 228 (emphasis added). Rucinski appears to concede that McCann and Beltz have met the first and third prongs of this test, arguing only that McCann and Beltz are not entitled to immunity because their use of force against Rucinski was not undertaken in good faith. In order to establish that she acted in “good faith,” an officer must establish that she “acted without malice.” Id. at 225. Michigan courts have explained that the “good faith” requirement “is subjective in nature” and “protects a[n officer’s] honest belief and good-faith conduct with the cloak of immunity while exposing to liability a[n officer] who acts with malicious intent.” Latits, 826 N.W.2d at 195. Therefore, “[a]s long as [the officer] can show that he had a good-faith belief that he was acting properly in using deadly force, he is entitled to the protections of governmental immunity regardless of whether he was correct in that belief.” Id. Both McCann and Beltz have presented undisputed evidence that they acted in good faith and without malice in using force against Rucinski. In her deposition, McCann testified that the deputies’ “goal” in responding to Vandenbrooks’s 911 call was to “try and establish communication” with Rucinski and “potentially” take him to the hospital. Both deputies have also presented undisputed evidence that they used force against Rucinski only because Rucinski posed an imminent risk of serious harm to McCann. Rucinski also claims that McCann and Beltz were “grossly negligent when they cornered Rucinski in the garage and used force against him, even though they knew he was experiencing a mental breakdown.” McCann and Beltz are entitled to summary judgment on this claim because Michigan law does not allow Rucinski to recast an assault and battery claim as a gross negligence claim. - 10 - Case No. 15-1844, Rucinski v. County of Oakland Michigan courts have repeatedly rejected plaintiffs’ “attempts to transform claims involving elements of intentional torts into claims of gross negligence.” Johnson ex rel. Steward v. Driggett, No. 306560, 2013 WL 375701, at  (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2013) (quoting VanVorous v. Burmeister, 687 N.W.2d 132, 143 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004), overruled in part on other grounds by Odom, 760 N.W.2d at 224 n.33); see also Latits, 826 N.W.2d at 197 (rejecting plaintiff’s gross negligence claim because the claim was “one of an intentional tort, and no amount of artful pleading can change that fact”). For example, in Latits, the plaintiff claimed that an officer who had intentionally shot a criminal suspect was grossly negligent because the officer had, among other things, failed to follow proper police procedures during the encounter, 826 N.W.2d at 196. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the gross-negligence claim, stating that: Negligence might have been the proper claim if [the officer] had unintentionally pulled the trigger or if [the officer] had been aiming at a different target but accidentally shot Latits instead. But there was nothing negligent or reckless about [the officer’s] decision to point his firearm at Latits and shoot—he did so intentionally. Id. Rucinski’s gross negligence claim fails because it is premised on the deputies’ intentional decision to use force against Rucinski. There is no evidence in the record casting doubt on whether McCann and Beltz’s use of force was anything but intentional. Rucinski seems to concede this point and instead argues that the deputies’ lack of planning and alleged bad tactics in initiating contact with Rucinski still make McCann and Beltz liable for gross negligence. This argument misses the mark because the deputies’ alleged bad tactics are not relevant to the question of whether McCann and Beltz’s decision to use force was intentional. See Latits, 826 N.W.2d at 196 (“[A]ny failure to follow [proper police] procedures would potentially be - 11 - Case No. 15-1844, Rucinski v. County of Oakland relevant to the correctness of the decision to shoot, but not whether that decision was intentional.”). For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. - 12 -