Opinion ID: 6330207
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Michigan Law Claims

Text: The district court denied Addis state-law immunity on Reynolds’s claim of assault and battery. An officer may immediately appeal the denial of Michigan governmental immunity. Rudolph v. Babinec, 939 F.3d 742, 753 (6th Cir. 2019). As with the denial of qualified immunity, we review the denial de novo, taking all facts in the light most favorable to Reynolds. Michigan law protects governmental employees from intentional tort liability if (1) the defendant acted within the scope of his employment, (2) “the acts were undertaken in good faith, and (3) the acts were discretionary, rather than ministerial, in nature.” Odom v. Wayne Cnty., 760 N.W.2d 217, 218 (Mich. 2008). The parties only dispute whether Addis acted in good faith. This is a subjective element, in contrast to the federal objective test for qualified immunity. See Brown v. Lewis, 779 F.3d 401, 420 (6th Cir. 2015). “As long as [Addis] 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.” Latits v. Phillips, 826 N.W.2d 190, 194 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). Addis testified that he shot Cody when Cody leapt up because he feared for his physical safety and because Cody may have wrestled Addis’s exposed gun from him. In short, he testified - 11 - Case No. 21-1454, Reynolds v. Addis that he shot Cody with a good-faith belief that Cody posed a substantial threat of harm. Reynolds offers no evidence establishing any other motivation for Addis, arguing only that Addis acted unreasonably. However, Michigan governmental immunity does not depend on reasonableness but on Addis’s subjective intent. See Latits, 826 N.W.2d at 195. Summary judgment was appropriate here. Reynolds also asserts a claim of gross negligence against Addis. But under Michigan law, “gross negligence is not an independent cause of action when the underlying claim is an intentional shooting of a suspect by an officer.” Presnall v. Huey, 657 F. App’x 508, 513 (6th Cir. 2016); see also Miller v. Sanilac Cnty., 606 F.3d 240, 254 (6th Cir. 2010). Reynolds’s complaint argued that Addis acted negligently by “[d]ischarging his firearm multiple times.” R.1 at 9. But Addis intentionally shot Cody. Reynolds has no cause of action for gross negligence.