Burnett v. Griffith

33 F.4th 907

Dillon BURNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.Josh GRIFFITH, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 21-1242/1293

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: March 8, 2022

Decided and Filed: May 12, 2022

ARGUED: William F. Piper, WILLIAM F. PIPER, PLC, Portage, Michigan, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Jeffrey C. Gerish, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ON BRIEF: William F. Piper, WILLIAM F. PIPER, PLC, Portage, Michigan, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Jeffrey C. Gerish, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Before: GILMAN, STRANCH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge.

Dillon Burnett brought an Eighth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state-law claim for assault and battery, against Sergeant Josh Griffith, a Van Buren County corrections officer. The claim is based on Sergeant Griffith's alleged use of excessive force while Burnett was in custody at the Van Buren County Jail.

The district court granted Sergeant Griffith's motion for summary judgment. It concluded that, although the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to find that Sergeant Griffith had used excessive force in bringing Burnett under control, the sergeant was nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because he did not have fair warning that his actions were unconstitutional. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual background

Burnett was arrested and charged with a failure to appear for a work-detail program, in violation of a guilty-plea sentencing condition related to a separate charge. He was held in custody at the Van Buren County Jail in Van Buren County, Michigan, where Sergeant Griffith was on duty as the booking officer.

At Burnett's arraignment hearing, his behavior was erratic enough for the district court to hold Burnett in contempt of court and sentence him to jail. After his arraignment hearing, Burnett was handcuffed to a bench in the booking area. Burnett unscrewed the bolt that he was handcuffed to and pulled his arms out from behind his back. Another officer alerted Sergeant Griffith, who resecured Burnett to the bench. Burnett then requested to speak with a mental-health representative, who later advised Sergeant Griffith that Burnett should be placed on suicide watch. Sergeant Griffith and another corrections officer, Paul Tessar, then took Burnett to a separate room where they placed him in an anti-suicide gown.

After Burnett put on the gown, Sergeant Griffith and Officer Tessar informed him that they would be escorting him to a cell for suicide watch. The use-of-force incident occurred during this escort and was caught on video. Officer Tessar enters the video frame first. He walks at a normal pace with paperwork in hand. Ann Niemi, a mental-health staffer, is also present, standing behind a filing cabinet at the bottom of the video frame. Before proceeding toward the room's exit door, Officer Tessar briefly pauses to assemble the paperwork and checks over his shoulder, likely looking toward Sergeant Griffith and Burnett.

Burnett and Sergeant Griffith enter the video frame a second or two later. Sergeant Griffith is seen holding on to Burnett's arms, which are handcuffed behind his back, directing Burnett toward the exit door. As Burnett and Sergeant Griffith move past a holding bench shown in the top right of the video frame, Burnett pivots his body away from Sergeant Griffith and toward the bench. Burnett continues to move his body forward in an attempt to break away from Sergeant Griffith. In response, Sergeant Griffith maintains his hold on Burnett's arms and tries to pull Burnett backward. Burnett, however, continues to push his body forward and away from Sergeant Griffith. At this point, Officer Tessar becomes aware of Burnett's movements and starts to move toward Sergeant Griffith and Burnett. Simultaneously, Sergeant Griffith propels Burnett backwards, shifting Burnett to the left so that he appears to face the floor, and takes Burnett down to the floor with significant force. Sergeant Griffith does not recall whether he gave any verbal warning before he took Burnett down, although he acknowledges that he did not first seek any assistance from Officer Tessar.

After taking Burnett down, Sergeant Griffith kneels over Burnett in an effort to control him. Burnett continues moving his arms and legs. Officer Tessar joins Sergeant Griffith in a kneeling position to assist with holding Burnett in place. Burnett claims that he temporarily lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness, Burnett recalls lying face down on the floor with several people standing around him.

Sergeant Griffith called for assistance on the jail radio when he noticed that Burnett had a laceration on his head and was bleeding. Other officers arrived on the scene, where they tended to Burnett's head with paper towels and gauze. About four minutes later, a nurse arrived to assess Burnett and clean his head injury. Her report reflects a laceration on Burnett's forehead. She referred him to the Lake View Hospital Emergency Department for further evaluation. Officers later assisted Burnett to a standing position for transport to the hospital.

According to his medical records, Burnett reported moderate pain in the left-frontal part of his head as well as radiating pain behind his left ear. Sergeant Griffith's Use of Force Report noted that Burnett told Sergeant Griffith that his head and neck hurt and that he was experiencing facial numbness. At the hospital, Burnett received three stitches to close the laceration on his forehead, which was one centimeter in length and two millimeters in depth. Burnett was discharged in good condition, returned to the jail, and placed on suicide watch. Since the incident, Burnett claims that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, severe migraines that occur a couple of times per month, lower back pain, and possible changes in his personality.

B. Procedural background

Sergeant Griffith moved for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss all of Burnett's claims based on the defense of qualified immunity. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge. In her first Report and Recommendation (R&R), the magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant Sergeant Griffith's motion in its entirety. Although the R&R concluded that Burnett satisfied the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim based on his injuries and pain, the magistrate judge concluded that Burnett did not submit any "evidence that Griffith maliciously and sadistically intended to inflict pain on Burnett," which is necessary to satisfy the subjective component of Burnett's Eighth Amendment and state-law claims.

Burnett timely objected to the magistrate judge's R&R. Agreeing with Burnett's objection that the R&R erred in holding that the record contained no evidence that Sergeant Griffith had maliciously and sadistically intended to harm him, the district court rejected the magistrate judge's conclusion. The court determined that, viewing the footage of the incident in question in the light most favorable to Burnett, "a reasonable jury ... could infer that Griffith acted with the requisite intent" necessary to sustain Burnett's claims. Because the magistrate judge had not addressed all aspects of the qualified-immunity defense, the court then remanded the case for further consideration.

In a supplemental R&R, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court conclude that Sergeant Griffith was not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. The supplemental R&R addressed only the issue of whether a reasonable officer in Sergeant Griffith's shoes would have been on notice that his actions violated Burnett's clearly established Eighth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force. Based on this court's decision in Cordell v. McKinney , 759 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2014), the magistrate judge reasoned that an officer has "fair and clear warning that throwing or slamming a handcuffed prisoner headfirst to the ground, particularly when other options were available to moderate the amount of force used, was an unreasonable method of regaining control over a prisoner."

Once again the district court rejected the R&R, concluding that Sergeant Griffith was entitled to qualified immunity because he was not on fair warning that his actions violated Burnett's rights under the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that "the facts in Cordell are too dissimilar to the facts in this case to conclude that Sergeant Griffith violated a clearly established right." Accordingly, the court granted Sergeant Griffith's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Burnett's Eighth Amendment claim on qualified-immunity grounds. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Burnett's state-law claim for assault and battery against Sergeant Griffith.

Burnett appeals the district court's judgment that Burnett had not satisfied the "clearly established" prong necessary to overcome Sergeant Griffith's qualified-immunity defense. And Sergeant Griffith cross-appeals the court's first and second orders to the extent that they concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Sergeant Griffith acted with the malicious intent to harm Burnett.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Whether Sergeant Griffith is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil-damages liability for violations of "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights." Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). The Supreme Court has articulated a two-prong test to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity: The first prong questions whether the facts, "taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, ... show that the officer's conduct...