Heard v. Detroit Pub. Sch. Cmty. Dist.

540 F.Supp.3d 727

Destiny HEARD, Plaintiff,

v.DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMMUNITY DISTRICT a/k/a Detroit Public Schools, and Charles Braziel, Defendants.

19-cv-10865

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed May 18, 2021

Michael S. Cafferty, Michael S. Cafferty & Assoc., Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.

Rebecca Shaw-Hicks, Theophilus E. Clemons, Office of the General Counsel, Detroit, MI, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In December of 2015, 15-year-old Destiny Heard, a high school student at Cass Technical High in Detroit, was restrained and detained by school officials for allegedly disruptive behavior. Now the Plaintiff in this lawsuit, Heard claims that Defendant Detroit Public Schools Community District and one of its police officers, Defendant Charles Braziel, violated her constitutional rights and committed intentional torts against her. Defendants move for summary judgment, asserting immunity under various federal and state law doctrines.

For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. Background¹

Thinking that her elevator pass was still valid, Plaintiff Destiny Heard attempted to get on the second-floor elevator while on her way to class. ECF No. 1, PageID.8-9. She had previously been issued an elevator pass because of an ankle injury. ECF No. 16-3, PageID.163. A teacher on the elevator, however, notified Plaintiff that her elevator pass had expired, that she could not ride the elevator, and that she had to use the stairs. ECF No. 16-3, PageID.185. Plaintiff claims that the school official on the elevator told Plaintiff she was trying to get back on the elevator. Plaintiff said she was not trying to do so, but the school official said she was called over by a private security officer. ECF No. 16-2, PageID.152. The school official and the private security officer inspected her identification card and then let her go.

As Plaintiff was heading up the stairs, a second private security officer and the assistant principal stopped her to question her about using the elevator. Id. at PageID.153. Plaintiff claims that as she was explaining her actions, the assistant principal interrupted her to say that she was upset. Id. Plaintiff then asserts that was when the assistant principal began to raise his voice at her. Plaintiff asked the assistant principal if they could speak in his office instead, but when the assistant principal continued to yell at her, she put on her headphones to tune him out. Id. At that point, a Detroit Public Schools Community Officer, Defendant Braziel, approached Plaintiff and told her that he was going to take her mobile phone. Id. at PageID.154. After Plaintiff refused, Defendant Braziel stated that she was coming with him. Id. Plaintiff refused again, stating that she was afraid of Defendant Braziel, and that she was going to use her mobile phone to call her mother. Id.

The record contains competing versions as to what happened next. Plaintiff claims that when Defendant Braziel reached for Plaintiff's mobile phone, she reacted by pulling her mobile phone back towards her. Id. Defendant Braziel claims that Plaintiff elbowed him when he tried to confiscate her mobile phone, while Plaintiff denies that she elbowed or made any swinging motion with her arm. ECF No. 16-3, PageID.190. Defendant Braziel states that he then told Plaintiff he was detaining her for assault. ECF No. 16-4, PageID.207. It is undisputed that Plaintiff and Defendant Braziel ended up on the ground against the second-floor stairs. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Braziel pushed and tackled her down the stairs. ECF No. 16-2, PageID.154. Defendant Braziel, however, claims that they "fell together down against to the stairs." ECF No. 16-4, PageID.206.

Plaintiff maintains that Defendant Braziel next urged her to get up, but she refused and asked that he call an ambulance for her injuries. ECF No. 16-2, PageID.154. After she refused, Plaintiff states that Defendant Braziel again urged her to stand up or be dragged away. Id. She then testifies that Defendant Braziel grabbed her arm and dragged her from the stairway to a corner of the hallway on the second floor. Id. at PageID.154-55. At this point, Plaintiff and Defendant emerge within view of a surveillance camera which recorded the subsequent events.²

In that video, which is five minutes long, Defendant Braziel is seen pulling Plaintiff into the hallway. See ECF No. 16-1, at timestamp 08:26:40. With Plaintiff under his physical control, Defendant moves Plaintiff toward the wall—from the video it is unclear whether Plaintiff's head hits the wall, but it does appear that she contacts the wall. Plaintiff maintains that Defendant Braziel slammed her against the wall and caused her to hit her head and fall. ECF No. 16-2, PageID.155. Defendant Braziel asserts that Plaintiff "threw herself into the wall," causing her to hit herself on the head. ECF No. 16-4, PageID.208. Then Defendant moves Plaintiff a few steps down the hall and they struggle over her mobile phone. The phone ends up on the floor and as Defendant Braziel releases Plaintiff from his control in order to bend down to pick up the mobile phone, Plaintiff walks quickly away from him, but he retrieves her. 08:26:53-08:27:03.

Then Defendant Braziel can be seen moving Plaintiff back toward the wall, in the corner, and Plaintiff appears to sit down on the ground. Video at 08:27:05. Another officer, a private security officer, enters the frame at 08:27;10. Defendant Braziel appears to hand Plaintiff's phone to this officer, and then a female private security officer arrives at 08:27:29. The officers all appear to be talking to Plaintiff, who is sitting on the floor with her back against the wall. At 08:28:25 the female officer appears to be making a call on Plaintiff's phone. At 08:29:00, she hands the phone to Defendant Braziel, who then holds a conversation with someone, possibly Plaintiff's mother according to Defendant Braziel's deposition testimony, ECF No. 16-5, PageID.239-40, until approximately 08:29:41.

During this time, the female security officer can be seen crouching down and speaking with Plaintiff. At 08:30:10, all three officers have been speaking with Plaintiff, and another woman, possibly an administrator or teacher, arrives and speaks with the officers. At 08:30:33, in the presence of the female staff person, Defendant Braziel begins to try to pull Plaintiff away from the wall. She resists and does not get up.

Although it is not possible to tell with certainty, it may be that Defendant threatened to pepper spray Plaintiff at approximately 08:30:40, because Plaintiff can be seen pulling up her jacket and covering her face. From 08:30:40 until 08:30:58, Defendant Braziel and the female officer struggle somewhat with Plaintiff—it is not clear when pepper spray is used. Both parties agree that while Plaintiff was sitting in the corner in what appears to be a fetal position, Defendant Braziel warned her that if she continued to refuse to comply, he would use his pepper spray on her. ECF No. 16-2, PageID.155; ECF No. 16-4, PageID.208.

Between 08:30:58 and 08:31:26, Defendant and the female officer are standing over Plaintiff, but it does not appear that they are struggling. The male officer and female staff person are also present observing during this time. At 08:31:26, Defendant Braziel can be seen attempting to pull Plaintiff up from the floor and she appears to be resisting. Between 08:31:26 and 08:31:45, the officers have difficulty forcing Plaintiff to get up. It does appear that Defendant Braziel kicks at Plaintiff at one point, and she is pulled up and then falls back down. Although Plaintiff denies in her testimony that she tried to kick or bite Defendant Braziel while she was sitting in the corner, ECF No. 16-3, PageID.191-92, he asserts that she tried to bite his right hand when he was trying to restrain her. ECF No. 16-4, PageID.208.

At 08:31:46, the male private security guard succeeds in lifting Plaintiff, and wraps his arms around her waist from behind, and carries her as she is kicking, for several steps. She appears to begin walking at timestamp 08:31:54 and the entire group exits the view of the camera.

Once detained, Plaintiff was taken to an office in the school where she received medical attention for the pepper spray in her eyes. ECF No. 16, PageID.131. Following the incident, Defendant Braziel prepared an incident report, which a local prosecutor used to bring charges for disorderly conduct. ECF No. 1, PageID.12-13; ECF No 21, PageID.300. A judge in the Wayne County Juvenile Court, however, dismissed those charges. Id. at PageID.13.

As a result of the events, Plaintiff filed suit in Michigan state court alleging that Defendants violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF No. 1. Specifically, that Defendant Braziel's use of force described above constitutes excessive force and unlawful search and seizure, and the subsequent criminal charges constitute malicious prosecution. See Id. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Braziel committed Michigan law intentional tort violations, including assault and battery, battery, malicious prosecution, and false arrest. See Id. As to Defendant Detroit Public Schools, Plaintiff alleges that it is liable for constitutional violations because Defendant Braziel acted pursuant to its policies and procedures, and because it approved his conduct. See Id.

Defendants removed the case to this Court and now moves for summary judgment on the basis that they are immune from liability against such claims. Defendant Detroit Public School asserts that it is entitled to municipal immunity. Defendant Braziel contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal constitutional violation claims, as...