Summary
The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to officers John Cratsenburg and Austin Pearson in a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest action brought by Daniel and Shatina Grady. The court held that probable cause existed for the arrests under Michigan’s obstruction statute and that the Gradys’ proposed comparators did not satisfy the narrow Nieves exception for retaliatory-arrest claims supported by probable cause. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Gradys' proffered comparators were 'otherwise similarly situated' for purposes of the Nieves exception to the probable-cause bar on retaliatory arrest claims.
Holdings
- The proffered comparators were not 'otherwise similarly situated' because they did not engage in the same conduct that gave officers probable cause to arrest the Gradys (approaching the perimeter and disobeying lawful orders).
- Because the Nieves exception is not satisfied, the presence of probable cause defeats the Gradys' First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim.
Key quotations
“The core problem is that the district court sidestepped the need to assess whether the neighbors were committing the same conduct that led to the Gradys’ arrest. The result was a false equation of the Gradys, who engaged in conduct that created probable cause, with other neighbors, who did not. Such an apples-to-oranges comparison stretches the Nieves exception beyond recognition.” (at 14)
“The same went for the plaintiffs in Hartman v. Thompson, 931 F.3d 471, 484 (6th Cir. 2019), who sued after being arrested for disorderly conduct. The Nieves exception was unavailable, we held, because the plaintiffs failed to offer 'objective evidence that similarly situated individuals at the [same event] had been allowed to engage in similarly disruptive activities without arrest.'” (at 15)
Factual background
During a late-night shooting investigation, officers established a perimeter around a suspect's residence. The Gradys approached within the perimeter, filmed the scene, and refused over a dozen commands to step back while loudly questioning the officers' authority. Officers arrested the Gradys for obstructing officers under Michigan law. Neighbors across the street who also filmed but stayed outside the perimeter and did not receive or disobey orders were not arrested.
Procedural history
The Gradys filed a § 1983 action against officers Cratsenburg and Pearson alleging, inter alia, First Amendment retaliation. The district court denied summary judgment to the officers on the retaliation claim, finding the Nieves exception satisfied. The officers appealed the denial of qualified immunity.
Remand instructions
Remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion (presumably for entry of summary judgment in favor of the officers on the First Amendment retaliation claim).