Summary
This United States District Court order denies the defendants' motion for reconsideration of a prior summary judgment ruling in a § 1983 excessive force lawsuit brought by the guardian of an individual arrested by Detroit police. The court addresses whether the plaintiff actively resisted arrest, concluding that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff creates a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the level of resistance and the reasonableness of the force used. Consequently, the court maintains its previous decision to deny summary judgment on the excessive force claims and leaves the issue for jury determination.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court erred in finding that the officers waived the issue of active resistance.
- Whether the court erred in its analysis of active resistance in the qualified‑immunity and excessive‑force context.
Holdings
- The court held that the officers did not waive the issue of active resistance and therefore the waiver argument was immaterial.
- The court held that a reasonable jury could find that Aaron's conduct constituted passive, not active, resistance and therefore the summary‑judgment denial was proper.
Key quotations
“Fundamentally, ‘a motion for reconsideration is not a second bite at the apple[.]’” (3)
Factual background
In May 2019 Detroit police arrested Derek Aaron, an autistic individual, after a robbery and home invasion. Officers attempted to handcuff Aaron, who kept his hands in front of him and asked what was happening. The officers used force, including knee strikes, and later sued for summary judgment on qualified immunity and excessive force claims.
Procedural history
Plaintiff sued officers under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part. The officers moved for reconsideration of that order; the court denied the motion.