Parsons v. City of Ann Arbor

• Decision Date: 31 March 2022
• Docket Number: 2:20-cv-10486
• Parties: DREW PARSONS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ANN ARBOR, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

DREW PARSONS, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ANN ARBOR, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-10486

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

March 31, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION [30]

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The only claims that remain in the present civil rights case are those against Officer Kandt for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and assault and battery under Michigan law. ECF 15, PgID 156. Kandt moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim and state-law immunity for the assault and battery claims. ECF 30. The parties briefed the motion, and the Court held a hearing. The Court will grant the motion because Officer Kandt has a right to qualified and state law immunity.

BACKGROUND

One fall night, Plaintiff Drew Parsons was at a college bar called Scorekeepers in Ann Arbor, Michigan. ECF 31, PgID 343. Bouncers at the bar were escorting Plaintiff outside because, according to the bar manager, Plaintiff was “quite intoxicated” and “was being creepy . . . to some of the female patrons.” Id. at 316. When the bouncers escorted Plaintiff outside, he was “pretty combative, was kind of

1

flailing around a lot, . . . [and] swearing.” Id. During the escort, Plaintiff swung at the manager and punched him in the face. Id. at 316, 320. Shortly after, the bouncers successfully removed Plaintiff from the bar. Id. at 319.

At that moment, however, Officer Kandt^[1] was sitting in his patrol car outside the bar with a ride-along^[2] in the front seat. ECF 11, ^[3] body camera video at 5:20-5:30, dash camera video at 3:55-4:02; ECF 31, PgID at 341-42. Kandt first noticed Plaintiff when the ride-along pointed to the commotion outside Scorekeepers. ECF 11, body camera video at 5:30-5:38, dash camera video at 4:02-4:08; ECF 31, PgID 342. Kandt saw the dispute involving Plaintiff and left the patrol car. ECF 11, body camera video at 5:38-5:44, dash camera video at 4:08-4:15; ECF 31, PgID 342. At first glance, Plaintiff's shirt was in disarray and unbuttoned. ECF 11, body camera video at 5:44- 5:47, dash camera video at 4:12-4:19; ECF 31, PgID 343. When Kandt approached Plaintiff, a bouncer told Kandt that Plaintiff had “knocked” the bar manager “in the face.” ECF 11, body camera video at 5:47-5:50; ECF 31, PgID 343. Kandt understood that the incident would have been a misdemeanor for simple assault. ECF 31, PgID 343.

Shortly after Kandt learned of the assault, Plaintiff started mouthing off at the victim (the manager); Kandt promptly separated the two by walking Plaintiff to the

2

front of the patrol car so that he could detain Plaintiff. ECF 11, body camera video at 5:50-6:00, dash camera video at 4:24-4:28; ECF 31, PgID 343, 346. At the same time, however, Plaintiff's girlfriend was trying to pull Plaintiff away from Kandt. ECF 11, body camera video at 5:50-6:00, dash camera video at 4:15-4:27; ECF 31, PgID 343. Once Kandt and Plaintiff stood near the hood of the patrol car, Kandt repeatedly told Plaintiff to put his hands behind his back. ECF 11, body camera video at 5:58-6:06, dash camera video at 4:25-4:35; ECF 31, PgID 344. Although Kandt did not tell Plaintiff why he was being detained, Kandt explained at his deposition that it was an investigatory detention. ECF 31, PgID 345. At the time, Kandt believed he had reasonable suspicion that Plaintiff had committed an assault. Id. at 345-46. Kandt also knew that Plaintiff had no weapons on him because Plaintiff had nothing in his hands and his waistband was exposed. Id. at 349.

Plaintiff then abruptly grabbed Kandt's wrist and was not following Kandt's commands. ECF 11, body camera video at 6:00-6:03, dash camera video at 4:25-4:35; ECF 31, PgID 346-47. Kandt believed that Plaintiff was impeding his investigation. ECF 31, PgID 346-47. While Kandt was trying to place Plaintiff's hands behind his back, Plaintiff jolted his hands to the front of his body, pushed off the car, and began rotating his body toward the street. ECF 11, body camera video at 6:04-6:08, dash camera video at 4:30-4:36; ECF 31, PgID 349. According to Kandt, he believed that Plaintiff was actively resisting his commands and that Plaintiff was trying to flee. ECF 31, PgID 346-47, 352, 354.

3

To counter the active resistance, Kandt tried to keep Plaintiff on the hood of the car rather than take Plaintiff down to the pavement. ECF 11, body camera video at 6:00-6:08, dash camera video at 4:30-4:37; ECF 31, PgID 351. But Kandt could not safely keep Plaintiff on the car because Plaintiff was pushing off the car and Plaintiff's hand started reaching toward the area where Kandt's taser was holstered. ECF 11, body camera video at 6:04-6:08, dash camera video at 4:30-4:37; ECF 31, PgID 352, 356.

Kandt reacted with what he described as a “takedown” to bring Plaintiff to the ground. ECF 11, body camera video at 6:04-6:12, dash camera video at 4:35-4:38; ECF 31, PgID 351. Kandt recalled that he had tried to use a straight arm bar takedown on Plaintiff, but he could not do so quickly enough to counter Plaintiff's active resistance. ECF 31, PgID 353.

While Plaintiff was on the ground, Kandt successfully handcuffed Plaintiff despite Plaintiff's girlfriend trying to obstruct the detention. ECF 11, body camera video at 6:09-7:30, dash camera video at 4:40-6:18; ECF 31, PgID 371. Plaintiff was eventually seen by paramedics and answered their questions. ECF 11, body camera video at 12:00-15:45; ECF 30-3, PgID 251-53; ECF 31, PgID 362. He was treated for a head injury and does not remember most details from that night. ECF 31, PgID 398-400. Later, the victim that Plaintiff had hit chose not to press charges, id. at 349, so Plaintiff was cited only for obstruction of justice-he pleaded no contest. ECF 30-6, PgID 280-81; ECF 31, PgID 401.

4

In all, about thirty seconds passed between when Kandt approached Plaintiff and when Plaintiff hit the ground. ECF 11, body camera video at 5:45-6:09, dash camera video at 4:13-4:38.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court must grant a motion for summary judgment “if the movant shows 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 moving party must identify specific portions of the record that “it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, the non-moving party may not simply rest on the pleadings but must present “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)).

A fact is material if proof of that fact would establish or refute an essential element of the cause of action or defense. Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir. 1984). A dispute over material facts is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts and draw all reasonable inferences “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” 60 Ivy St. Corp. v. Alexander, 822 F.2d 1432, 1435 (6th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). The Court must give “full weight to any

5

facts objectively compelled by . . . videotape.” Moser v. Etowah Police Dep't, ---F. 4th--, 2022 WL 619830, at *3 (6th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

The Court will first grant qualified immunity to Officer Kandt on the excessive force claim. After, the Court will grant state law immunity to Kandt for the assault and battery claims.

I. Excessive Force Claim

To establish a § 1983 claim, Plaintiff must prove “that (1) a person, (2) acting under color of state law, (3) deprived [him] of a federal right.” Berger v. City of Mayfield Heights, 265 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense” to a § 1983 claim. English v. Dyke, 23 F.3d 1086, 1089 (6th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). It “‘shield[s]' public officials from money-damages liability if ‘their...