Martin v. City of Broadview Heights

• Decision Date: 09 April 2013
• Docket Number: No. 11–4039.,11–4039.
• Parties: Tanya A. MARTIN, Administratrix of the Estate of William Parker Martin, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. CITY OF BROADVIEW HEIGHTS; City of Broadview Heights Police Department; Ryan Tieber, Officer; Michael Semanco, Officer; Scott Zimmerman, Officer; Rob Novotny, Officer; Robert Lipton, Chief; Steve Kopniske, Lt.; Tim Scarbrough, Sgt.; John Doe I thru III, Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

712 F.3d 951

Tanya A. MARTIN, Administratrix of the Estate of William Parker Martin, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.CITY OF BROADVIEW HEIGHTS; City of Broadview Heights Police Department; Ryan Tieber, Officer; Michael Semanco, Officer; Scott Zimmerman, Officer; Rob Novotny, Officer; Robert Lipton, Chief; Steve Kopniske, Lt.; Tim Scarbrough, Sgt.; John Doe I thru III, Defendants–Appellants.

No. 11–4039.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: Oct. 4, 2012.

Decided and Filed: April 9, 2013.

ARGUED:Frank H. Scialdone, Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants. S. Michael Lear, Zukerman, Daiker & Lear Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Frank H. Scialdone, John T. McLandrich, Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants. S. Michael Lear, Larry W. Zukerman, Zukerman, Daiker & Lear Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

Before: GUY, DAUGHTREY, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge.

This excessive force case against officers of the Broadview Heights Police Department (BHPD) and the City of Broadview Heights arises from the fatal arrest of William Parker Martin, an unarmed and mentally unstable 19–year–old. Martin's estate sued several BHPD officials asserting that the use of excessive force during the arrest violated Martin's rights under the Constitution and Ohio law. The estate also sued the City under federal law for failing to train or supervise its employees. The district court denied summary judgment to three officers on the basis of qualified immunity and state-law immunity, and to the City. The officers and the City now appeal. We hold that immunity does not shield the officers from liability in these circumstances. And in the face of that conclusion, we lack jurisdiction to review the municipal-liability claim. As a result, we AFFIRM.

I. BACKGROUND

William Parker Martin, a 19–year–old male, died in the early morning hours of August 16, 2007, minutes after BHPD Officers Ryan Tieber, Scott Zimmerman, and Michael Semanco physically restrained and arrested him. (A fourth officer, Robert Novotny, was also on the scene but is not a party to this appeal because the district court granted summary judgment in his favor on all counts asserted against him.) Shortly after 2:00 a.m., the officers responded to a dispatch call indicating that a male, wearing only jeans at the time, was yelling for help outside an apartment at 1000 Tollis Parkway. On his way there, Tieber heard from dispatch that a resident at 8633 Scenicview Drive reported that a naked male entered a nearby apartment.

Approaching the Scenicview address, Tieber encountered a naked male, later identified as Martin, running towards his patrol car, speaking quickly and nonsensically. Martin momentarily calmed down and asked Tieber for help, placing his hands behind his back and insisting that Tieber take him to jail. When Tieber grabbed Martin's hands and reached for his handcuffs, Martin “jogged away.” Tieber caught Martin before he got further than 20 feet, and fell on top of Martin with his abdomen to Martin's back.

Officer Semanco then arrived on the scene and, observing Martin trying to push himself up, dropped his knee into Martin's side to keep him on the ground. Semanco fell on top of both Martin and Tieber, and delivered one or two “compliance body shots” to Martin's side with his knee. During the struggle, Martin bit Tieber's knuckle. In response, Tieber struck Martin in the face with two “hammer punches,” which, he later explained, are closed-fist punches that strike a target using the area between the fifth finger and the wrist. Semanco then used all of his force to strike Martin's face, back, and ribs at least five times. Meanwhile, Tieber folded his legs around Martin's hips and upper thighs, and gripped Martin's chin with his right arm. The estate introduced evidence suggesting his arm was wrapped around Martin's neck.

Martin was face down on the ground when Officer Zimmerman arrived. As Tieber and Semanco attempted to get Martin's arms behind his back, Zimmerman kneeled on Martin's calves to prevent him from kicking and assisted in handcuffing him. At the time of the incident, Tieber weighed approximately 180 pounds, Semanco approximately 185 to 195 pounds, and Zimmerman approximately 245 pounds. Martin was 5'10? and weighed 172 pounds.

Officer Novotny showed up shortly before Martin was handcuffed. When Martin was secured, Novotny and Semanco left Martin with Zimmerman and Tieber, who continued to hold Martin in a face-down position.¹ The two officers soon heard Martin make a “gurgling sound.” When they rolled Martin onto his side, he was unresponsive and exhibited no signs of life. The officers tried to resuscitate him and called for paramedics. At 3:06 a.m., Martin was pronounced dead.

Martin's cause of death is disputed. Dr. Frank Miller, III, the Cuyahoga County Coroner, determined that Martin died from an acute psychotic episode with excited delirium due to intoxication by lysergic acid diethylamide (commonly known as LSD or acid) and cardiopulmonary arrest. Dr. Miller concluded the death did not result from the force applied to Martin's body.

Dr. Stanley Seligman, the forensic pathologist who conducted Martin's autopsy, found numerous injuries that suggested death by asphyxiation. Three months after the autopsy, Dr. Seligman's concern that Martin may have died as a result of asphyxiation while the officers restrained him led him to ask an investigator in the coroner's office to conduct another inquiry into Martin's cause of death. After the investigator produced his follow-up report, Dr. Seligman confirmed that the officers' actions during the arrest were “compressive events” that could have caused Martin's asphyxiation. He also documented scattered areas of soft tissue hemorrhage at the lowest part of the neck above the two collar bones, which he attributed to fingertip pressure consistent with someone grabbing Martin's neck. And he found that the gurgling noise Martin made indicated asphyxiation. Dr. Seligman concluded that the evidence pointed to asphyxia as the likely cause of death.

Dr. Werner Spitz, a pathologist hired by the estate, offered a similar opinion. He criticized the coroner's cause-of-death determination, stating that excited delirium is a controversial, unproven, and unrecognized theory from which no death has ever resulted. And he stated that physical manifestations on Martin's body—including injuries that suggested Martin was pulled backwards by the neck—“clearly support death by asphyxiation.”

At the time of Martin's arrest, BHPD had in place two policies meant to guide the officers' conduct in situations such as this one. The first, a use-of-force policy, instructed the officers in the appropriate amount of force to use in a given situation. The second was a “Positional Asphyxia Policy” implemented in April 2003 to inform the officers of the dangers of asphyxiating an individual during a restraint procedure. The asphyxiation policy provides the medical definition of asphyxia, as well as its effects. In a section entitled “High Risk Subjects,” it describes conditions that may increase an individual's risk of death after being restrained, warning that a person who is psychotic due to mental illness or the ingestion of drugs or alcohol may be particularly susceptible to death. The policy further states:

Many individuals who suddenly die after being restrained have exhibited bizarre, irrational, agitated behavior, including a violent struggle with officers who are trying to restrain them, often with what seems like superhuman strength. This condition is sometimes referred to as Excited or Agitated Delirium. It can result from the use of alcohol or drugs or from mental illness.

Officers Tieber and Semanco said they never considered this policy during Martin's arrest. Semanco also offered that he did not think about whether Martin might be a high-risk subject under it.

Dr. R. Paul McCauley, the estate's police-practices expert, offered his opinion regarding the incident and BHPD's operational practices. Dr. McCauley faulted BHPD for its failure to: properly train officers with respect to the Positional Asphyxia Policy, properly investigate use-of-force violations, and instruct officers on how to deal with emotionally disturbed individuals. Dr. McCauley concluded that if BHPD followed accepted police practices, Martin's death “more than likely” would have been avoided.

Tanya M. Martin, Martin's mother and the administratrix of his estate, filed suit against several BHPD officers and the City, pleading federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and multiple state-law claims. In their motion for summary judgment, the three officers involved in this appeal asserted qualified immunity as a defense to liability for the estate's federal claims and statutory immunity under Ohio law for the state-law claims. The City argued that the estate could not show it violated Martin's rights.

The district court denied summary judgment to Officers Tieber, Semanco, and Zimmerman on the estate's § 1983 claim alleging unreasonable seizure and excessive force, concluding that the estate put forward sufficient facts and evidence to show that the officers' use of force was objectively unreasonable. The court also denied summary judgment to the City on the estate's negligent hiring, training, and supervision claim. It found that the training the City provided on its use-of-force and asphyxiation policies was inadequate to prepare the officers for their confrontation with Martin. And the court determinedthat the estate presented enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the City's deliberate indifference to Martin's rights. As to the state-law claims, the court held the officers were not entitled to statutory immunity as a matter of law because a reasonable jury could conclude that they acted with...