Opinion ID: 2829693
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sergeant John E. Gray

Text: 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.