Opinion ID: 652671
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fisher's Substantive Due Process Claim

Text: 18 When a plaintiff bases a Sec. 1983 substantive due process claim on any conduct other than excessive force, his claim, must be based either on a violation of an explicit constitutional guarantee (e.g., a fourth amendment illegal seizure violation) or on behavior by a state actor that shocks the conscience. Braley v. City of Pontiac, 906 F.2d 220, 225 (6th Cir.1990). When the challenged conduct involves excessive force during an arrest, as is the case here, the shock the conscience prong is abandoned, and replaced by a traditional reasonableness of the seizure analysis under the Fourth Amendment. Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989). 7 19 The two allegations suggesting a substantive due process claim are: (1) that the officers assaulted and battered plaintiff, and (2) that the officers did not conduct a sufficient investigation to determine who the true perpetrator was. Graham directs that the former of these claims be analyzed as a Fourth Amendment violation, and the latter claim is also a Fourth Amendment claim because it essentially alleges that Fisher's arrest was not supported by probable cause. 20 The claim of inadequate investigation prior to arrest is easily dispatched. As noted above, the officers clearly had probable cause to arrest Fisher. Two witnesses had positively identified him as the man who shot the victim. Moreover, both arrests were made pursuant to duly issued warrants. Under these circumstances, the defense of qualified immunity would protect the officers from liability for damages in a Sec. 1983 suit. 8 21 A plaintiff may establish a successful Sec. 1983 claim by showing that, during the course of an arrest, an officer employed force that was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Graham, 490 U.S. at 395, 396-97. 9 Fisher's excessive force allegations are sufficiently detailed to take them out from under the legal rules allowing dismissal of unsupported conclusory charges. Fisher alleged that the defendants intentionally and without provocation assaulted and battered plaintiff. He claimed that this abuse resulted in physical and mental injuries, including severe head injuries, cuts and bruises resulting in serious scars, severe and constant headaches, as well as back and stomach problems.... 22 Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment unless they showed the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Since the evidence must be viewed in Fisher's favor, his complaint clearly raises a material factual issue: whether he was in fact beaten unreasonably in terms of the Fourth Amendment. Criss v. City of Kent, 867 F.2d 259, 261 (6th Cir.1988). 23 Even though a material factual issue appears on the face of Fisher's complaint, summary judgment could nevertheless be appropriate if the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The district court was entitled to consider the whole record, including the parties' briefs and the oral argument. Since she provided no analysis in her order of summary judgment, however, we cannot discern what additional part of the record, if any, led the trial judge to conclude that no rational trier of fact [could] find for the non-moving party. Id. 24 Except for the excessive force claim, summary judgment for defendants was appropriate. On remand, Fisher should be limited to proving the civil rights violations alleged in Count III by showing that the force used to arrest him was unreasonable, considering all the circumstances, under the Fourth Amendment.