E.W. v. Detroit Pub. Sch. Dist.

E.W.; RONNITA BRYANT, Guardian of E.W., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants, BROADUS WILKINS; MYRON MONTGOMERY, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 20-1790

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

March 21, 2022

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: McKEAGUE, BUSH, and READLER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

MCKEAGUE, CIRCUIT JUDGE

Defendants Montgomery and Wilkins appeal the denial of qualified immunity in this § 1983 case. Plaintiff E.W., a high school freshman at the time of the incident, claims that Assistant Principal Montgomery used excessive force when he forcibly removed E.W. from the school building, threw E.W. to the ground, and pressed his knee into E.W.'s chest. He also claims that Detroit Public School Officer Wilkins swung his arm at E.W.'s face, dislocating and breaking his jaw. The district court found that material questions of fact precluded summary judgment, analyzing Montgomery's actions under the Fourteenth Amendment and Wilkins's actions under the Fourth Amendment. We agree and AFFIRM.

I.

At the summary judgment stage, we review the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Latits v. Phillips, 878 F.3d 541, 547 (6th Cir. 2017). When events are captured on video, "[t]o the extent that videos in the record show facts so clearly that a reasonable jury could view those facts in only one way, those facts should be viewed in the light depicted by the videos." Id. (citing Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)). In this case, the incident between E.W. and Defendant Myron Montgomery was captured by three video cameras. No recording is available of the incident between E.W. and Defendant Broadus Wilkins.^[1]

When these events took place, E.W. was in the first few months of his freshman year at West Side Academy high school. He was a skinny 14-year-old, standing 5′3″. Defendant Montgomery was the assistant principal of the school and Defendant Wilkins was a school police officer. Montgomery was around 5′10′′ tall, Wilkins 5′8″; each weighed roughly 230 pounds.

A. Confrontation with Montgomery

On October 9, 2017, E.W. left his wallet with a teacher while he played basketball after school. After making it to the bus stop to go home, he realized he forgot the wallet. He needed his money to make it home from school. E.W. walked back to school intending to retrieve his wallet from either the teacher or the principal. He reentered the school building from the side door and was confronted by Montgomery. E.W. alleges Montgomery yelled at him to leave. E.W. didn't tell Montgomery that he was looking for his wallet because, in his words, Montgomery was acting "hostile and angry." R. 53-2, PageID 571. E.W. left the building on Montgomery's command but reentered from the rear door.

Montgomery met E.W. at the rear door. This portion of events was captured on camera. E.W. told Montgomery he needed to retrieve his wallet so that he could get home. E.W. alleges that Montgomery did not listen to him, and instead told him to leave within three seconds and began counting down. On the video, an increasingly agitated E.W. is shown speaking to Montgomery. After some dialogue, Montgomery threw down a pile of papers he was holding and got in E.W.'s face. When E.W. still did not leave, Montgomery grabbed E.W. and pushed him through the school doors. As the video shows, Montgomery pushed E.W. out of the building, pushing E.W. back on his heels through two sets of doors. Outdoors, E.W. contends that Montgomery slammed E.W. to the pavement. Montgomery then held his knee on E.W.'s chest for around five seconds. Montgomery then got off of E.W. and went back inside.

Montgomery's account of the events differs somewhat from E.W.'s. Montgomery claims that he told E.W. specifically upon E.W.'s first entry through the side door that he needed to reenter through the student entrance at the front door and go through the metal detectors per school policy. Montgomery claims he told E.W. to leave because he was in the building illegally. When E.W. didn't leave, he "escorted" E.W. out of the building. R. 53-3, PageID 642. Montgomery testified that he did not slam E.W. but that both fell to the ground together "[a]s a result of our tussle." Id. at PageID 643. He also claims that he pinned E.W. to the ground with his knee in an effort to restrain him. Montgomery then walked back into the building to his office, stating a need to "separate" from the situation.

Wilkins also testified to Montgomery's interactions and the immediate aftermath. He had witnessed Montgomery confront E.W. when E.W. first entered the building, and heard E.W. swear at Montgomery. Later, Wilkins heard Montgomery yelling and counting down from three, and witnessed Montgomery push E.W. out of the building. Wilkins testified that he did not see E.W. try to assault or injure Montgomery. Wilkins testified that he walked towards the rear door and saw a Securitas private security officer picking up E.W. and trying to calm E.W. down. E.W. was, at this point, cursing and ranting, while Montgomery walked back inside.

B. Confrontation with Wilkins

E.W. got himself off the ground as Wilkins and other people approached. The video shows several individuals walking outside to speak with E.W., who from one angle can be seen to be agitated. The video shows Wilkins walk out of the school to speak with E.W.

E.W. testified that Wilkins walked over to him and said "get away from the school." R. 53-2, PageID 548. E.W. testified that Wilkins then swung his left arm, held straight, at E.W., hitting him in the face with his forearm.

Wilkins, for his part, claims that he turned to walk inside when he saw E.W. start to run at the door. At that point, Wilkins turned and put his left arm straight out, and E.W. ran into his arm. Wilkins did not testify that E.W. was trying to threaten or attack him but was instead trying to run past him.

C. E.W.'s Injuries

E.W. was picked up by his mother and taken to the emergency room. The contact between Wilkins's forearm and E.W.'s face left him with a broken and dislocated jaw. E.W. testified that he also experienced severe pain in his shoulder that prevented him from raising his arm for several months following the incident. He also testified that he has suffered psychological harm, including difficulty trusting police officers and men in general, bad dreams, trouble sleeping, and a loss of dignity.

D. Procedural History

Ronnita Bryant, E.W.'s guardian, filed this suit on behalf of E.W. against Montgomery; Wilkins; the Detroit Public School District; and Securitas, the private security company. The suit was originally filed in state court and removed by Defendants. The claims against Securitas were settled and the claim for Monell liability against the Detroit Public School District was dropped voluntarily. E.W. brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against Wilkins and Montgomery, in addition to assault and battery and gross negligence claims under state law against both. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court held a hearing on Defendants' motion. At the hearing, the court granted the motion as to the state law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice but denied Defendants' motion as to E.W.'s § 1983 claims. Defendants filed this interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of qualified immunity. E.W. moved to dismiss Defendants' appeal, arguing that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. A panel of this court denied E.W.'s motion to dismiss, determining that this panel should consider jurisdiction at the conclusion of briefing. See E.W. v. Detroit Public Sch., No. 20-1790 (6th Cir. Aug. 9, 2021) (order).

II.

We have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal to review a district court's denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). This review is limited to the extent that such a denial turns on an issue of law. Gillispie v. Mia. Twp., 18 F.4th 909, 915 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 530). Because Defendants' appeal considers "the legal question of whether the law was clearly established," we have jurisdiction. Gordon v. Bierenga, 20 F.4th 1077, 1081 (6th Cir. 2021).

This court reviews a district court's denial of summary judgment de novo, reviewing facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Foster v. Patrick, 806 F.3d 883, 886 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is only appropriate if the record shows that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

III.

Both Montgomery and Wilkins appeal the denial of qualified immunity. Public officials, like Defendants here, are immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the plaintiff establishes both (1) a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that "the right at issue was 'clearly established' when the event occurred such that a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct violated it." Martin v. City of Broadview Heights, 712 F.3d 951, 957 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009)). We may decide the prongs in either order. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. Qualified immunity is analyzed separately for each defendant. Wright v. City of Euclid, 962 F.3d 852, 865 (6th Cir. 2020).

A. Officer Wilkins

We begin with E.W.'s claim against Officer Wilkins for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures protects citizens from excessive force by law enforcement...