King v. City of Rockford

97 F.4th 379

Thurman KING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF ROCKFORD, MICHIGAN; Rockford Department of Public Safety;Zachary Abbate and Jason Bradley, Officers,in their individual capacities, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 22-2038

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Argued: October 26, 2023

Decided and Filed: March 28, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 1:21-cv-00259—Jane M. Beckering, District Judge.

ARGUED: Jeffrey C. Gerish, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellants. Stephen R. Drew, DREW, COOPER & ANDING, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mary Massaron, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellants. Stephen R. Drew, Adam C. Sturdivant, DREW, COOPER & ANDING, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.

Before: GIBBONS, BUSH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

Thurman King sued Officers Zachary Abbate and Jason Bradley, the City of Rockford ("City"), the Rockford Public Safety Department ("Department"), and other municipal officers (collectively, "defendants") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for events arising out of a 2019 traffic stop. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of defendants, but denied their motion for summary judgment on qualified and governmental immunity grounds for King's federal and state tort claims against Abbate and Bradley, and denied their motion as to King's Monell¹ claim against the City and Department. Defendants appealed this denial. On review, we affirm in part, and reverse in part, the district court's denial of qualified and governmental immunity to Abbate and Bradley. We dismiss the City and Department's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

I.

On the night of March 20, 2019, Officer Zachary Abbate, then a Rockford Department of Public Safety officer, pulled Thurman King over, leading to the physical altercation and arrest that underpin the current appeal. King was driving his fiancée's car home from work around 11:00 p.m. when he passed Abbate's patrol car. Abbate then drove behind King and noticed that King's license plate light was out, in violation of Michigan law. Dash camera footage captured the following course of events, which were also the subject of testimony.

According to King, he came to a complete stop at a stop sign after approaching an intersection. The dash camera footage appears to support this view. Abbate, on the other hand, testified that King rolled through the stop sign, also a violation of Michigan law. Other than what he perceived as an incomplete stop, Abbate saw "no evidence of [King] driving erratically." DE 64-2, Abbate Dep. Tr., Page ID 338.

Abbate initiated his patrol car lights shortly thereafter as King turned onto another street. King, who happened to live on that street, continued to drive for a short distance before using his turn signal and pulling into his driveway. Approximately thirteen seconds passed between when Abbate initiated his patrol lights and when King pulled into his driveway. Upon pulling into his driveway, King exited his vehicle without waiting for Abbate's command to do so. As King got out, Abbate yelled for King to show his hands, and King complied.

Abbate then admonished King for failing to stop at the stop sign and observed that he smelled marijuana on King's breath. King disputed these accusations. King admitted that he had smoked earlier in the day, but he explained that he hadn't smoked in more than six hours and could not possibly smell like marijuana. Unbeknownst to Abbate, however, King had an unlit joint in his pants pocket at the time. At some point in the interaction, Abbate requested that King submit to a chemical test. King refused.

At this point, the parties' accounts diverge. Abbate alleges that King was "loud," "yelling," and "argumentative" while Abbate ordered him to stay at the rear of his vehicle, in view of the dash camera. Id. at Page ID 343-44. Abbate further testified that King walked away from him multiple times, forcing Abbate to grab King's arm to "maintain control and prevent him from fleeing." Id. at Page ID 344. King disputes that he walked away from Abbate, saying only that he may have taken "a step towards the house" while calling out to his fiancée, Michelle, who was inside at the time. DE 69-2, King Dep. Tr., Page ID 441-42. Video footage shows King and Abbate arguing, with Abbate attempting to grab King's arm, and King taking a step away and turning toward his house while continuing to yell for his fiancée. Abbate then directed King to step back toward the rear of the vehicle and put his hands behind his back, and King complied. But when King turned to again call out to Michelle, Abbate swung King around, grabbed the back of his coat, and threw him onto the pavement.

After the takedown maneuver, King and Abbate moved outside of the view of the dash camera. King recalled Abbate "screaming" at this point and eventually maneuvering King into handcuffs while King cried out in pain. Id. at Page ID 443. At some point Officer Jason Bradley showed up, and King alleges that the officers pinned him to the ground and knelt on his back. King testified that he "wasn't resisting" while on the ground, as he "couldn't even move" if he tried. Id. King repeatedly alerted officers that he was having trouble breathing, to which Bradley responded that if King can talk, he can breathe.

After getting King off the ground and into the squad car, Abbate and Bradley noticed an abrasion above King's eye and requested medical personnel to assess the wound. Officers then searched the car King was driving and found a closed, half-full bottle of alcohol on the floorboard of the vehicle. The officers charged King with one felony count of obstructing a police officer, and two misdemeanor counts: operating a vehicle while intoxicated and possessing an open container of alcohol in a vehicle. The officers did not ticket King for an inoperable license plate light or a failure to stop.

The officers then transported King to Kent County Jail, where he remained in custody overnight, received further medical attention, and underwent a blood test. The blood test revealed no alcohol and a negligible amount of THC, reportedly "equal to 0.001 alcohol," in King's system. DE 69-4, Toxicology Report, Page ID 454-55. Upon his release the next day, King went to the emergency room and was diagnosed with a left elbow sprain, head injury, abrasion, and neck strain. King testified that he examined his fiancée's license plate light that same day and found it functional and unobstructed. Ultimately, King pled not guilty to all charges, and a Kent County prosecutor nolle prosequied the charges on July 2, 2019.

At the time of King's stop, the police department enforced a policy that required officers to conduct a minimum of two traffic stops during each ten-hour shift. The Department posted each officer's stop numbers at the end of every month. Roughly one month before King's stop, Department leadership reprimanded Abbate for failing to meet "the mandatory minimum expectations for traffic stops"—Abbate fell one stop short of his monthly quota for December 2018. DE 69-1, RDPS Counseling Mem., Page ID 428. Leadership warned that it would closely monitor Abbate's performance "over the next several months." Id. After Department leadership again informed Abbate of his deficient stop numbers for June 2019, Abbate resigned.

King filed suit in the Western District of Michigan, alleging federal and state law claims against the officers for their actions in the 2019 traffic stop, and against the City and Department for their failure to train, failure to investigate citizen complaints, and promulgation of a discriminatory traffic-stop policy. The following claims survived defendants' motion for summary judgment and form the basis for this appeal: (1) King's unreasonable seizure claim against Abbate; (2) King's excessive force claims against Abbate and Bradley; (3) King's Monell claim against the City and Department; (4) King's state law assault and battery claims against Abbate and Bradley; and (5) King's state law false arrest claims against Abbate and Bradley.

II.

"We review de novo a district court's denial of a defendant's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds." Stoudemire v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 705 F.3d 560, 565 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Tucker v. City of Richmond, 388 F.3d 216, 219 (6th Cir. 2004)). Similarly, we review de novo an official's entitlement to governmental immunity under Michigan law. Id. (citing Reilly v. Vadlamudi, 680 F.3d 617, 622 (6th Cir. 2012)).

Summary judgment is appropriate only if the movant demonstrates that there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Stoudemire, 705 F.3d at 565 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). In assessing the motion, we must view all facts and make all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Where uncontroverted video evidence "so utterly discredit[s]" one party's version of events, so that no reasonable jury could believe him or her, the facts should be viewed "in the light depicted by the videotape." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). But "[t]o the extent that facts shown in videos can be interpreted in multiple ways or if videos do not show all relevant facts, such facts should be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Latits v. Phillips, 878 F.3d 541, 547 (6th Cir. 2017).

A district court's denial of...