Seata Stephens v. City of Akron, et al
Filing
OPINION filed : We are therefore precluded from taking jurisdiction over this issue and DISMISS the appeal, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 28(g). Boyce F. Martin , Jr., Authoring Circuit Judge; Richard F. Suhrheinrich, Circuit Judge and Raymond M. Kethledge, Circuit Judge. (5 pages)
Case: 10-4070 Document: 006110922561 Filed: 04/08/2011 Page: 1
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0218n.06
No. 10-4070
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
SEATA STEPHENS, Wife and Administratrix of
the Estate of Deceased, Jeffery L. Stephens,
Apr 08, 2011
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
CITY OF AKRON,
Defendant,
and
MICHAEL MILES; JOSEPH SIDOTI,
Defendants-Appellants.
/
Before:
MARTIN, SUHRHEINRICH, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Police Officers Michael Miles and Joseph Sidoti
appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified
immunity for events arising out of a tragic incident where they shot and killed Jeffery Stephens, Sr.
Despite our repeated admonishment that a denial of a motion for qualified immunity may only be
appealed if it is based on a pure issue of law, the Officers challenge the district court’s conclusion
that material questions of fact exist that preclude resolving this matter on summary judgment.
Because the Officers’ claims present the precise factual dispute we lack jurisdiction to resolve, we
DISMISS the appeal.
Case: 10-4070 Document: 006110922561 Filed: 04/08/2011 Page: 2
No. 10-4070
Stephens v. City of Akron, et al.
Page 2
I.
Jeffery Stephens, Sr. and his wife, Seata Stephens, hosted a Fourth of July party at their
home. In the early morning hours of July 5, 2008, a fight broke out between Jeffery Stephens, Jr.
and Reggie Valentine, a social friend who had been at the party. Valentine eventually wound up
pointing his gun at Jeffery, Jr. Fearful of what might happen, Seata retrieved her gun and tried to
use the threat of force to make Valentine leave. Valentine fired a few shots in the air. Seata
responded by firing a few shots in the ground, and retreated inside where she called 911.
Valentine left the Stephens’ home, but Jeffery, Sr. and Jeffery, Jr. took Seata’s gun, and set
out to try and talk to Valentine about what happened. Officers Miles and Sidoti responded to Seata’s
911 call, and approached Jeffery, Sr. and Jeffery, Jr. in their police cruiser. Upon seeing the police
approaching, Jeffery, Jr. told Jeffery, Sr. to drop the gun. Jeffery, Jr. testified that Jeffery, Sr.
dropped the gun in the grass next to the sidewalk.
Events transpired very quickly after the Officers arrived. Jeffery, Jr. complied with the
Officers’ directions to get on the ground. Jeffery, Sr. did not initially get on the ground when Jeffery,
Jr. did. Officer Sidoti testified at his police interview on July 8 that he saw Jeffery, Sr. reaching for
his gun and shot him before he could put his hand on the weapon. Officer Miles testified at his July
8 police interview that he fired because he saw a gun in Jeffery, Sr.’s hand. In his deposition on
October 15, 2009, Officer Miles testified that he did not fire until he saw that Jeffery, Sr. had a gun
in his hand and pointed at him. After Jeffery, Sr. fell to the ground, Officer Miles stated that he
kicked the gun away so it was out of Jeffery, Sr.’s reach. Jeffery, Sr. died from the gun shot wounds.
Case: 10-4070 Document: 006110922561 Filed: 04/08/2011 Page: 3
No. 10-4070
Stephens v. City of Akron, et al.
Page 3
Although Jeffery, Jr. was facing away from Jeffery, Sr. at the time of the shooting, the
commotion awakened Edna Jennings, one of the Stephens’ neighbors. Jennings testified that Jeffery,
Sr. was complying with the Officers’ direction to get on the ground when the Officers shot him.
Faced with this conflicting testimony, the district court found that there were disputed issues
of fact precluding summary judgment. The district court held that there is a disputed issue of
material fact as to whether Jeffery, Sr. was armed at the time of the shooting in light of Jeffery, Jr.’s
testimony that he had dropped the gun into the grass when they saw the patrol car approaching.
Additionally, based on Jennings’s testimony, the district court determined that there was a disputed
question of material fact as to whether Jeffery, Sr. was attempting to comply with Officer Sidoti’s
commands to get on the ground when both officers shot him.
II.
We review a district court’s denial of summary judgment on the grounds of qualified
immunity de novo. Bishop v. Hackel, – F.3d —, 2011 WL 291951, at *5 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2011).
“A denial of a claim of qualified immunity is immediately appealable only if the appeal is premised
not on a factual dispute, but rather on neat abstract issues of law.” Id. at *4 (quoting Johnson v.
Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 317 (1995)) (internal quotations omitted). We only have jurisdiction to
consider an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity if the defendant does not dispute the facts
alleged by the plaintiff. See, e.g., id.; Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 496-97 (6th Cir. 2009).
“Alternatively, [i]f, instead, the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s version of the story, the defendant
must nonetheless be willing to concede the most favorable view of the facts to the plaintiff for
Case: 10-4070 Document: 006110922561 Filed: 04/08/2011 Page: 4
No. 10-4070
Stephens v. City of Akron, et al.
Page 4
purposes of the appeal.” Bishop, 2011 WL 291951, at *4 (quoting Berryman v. Rieger, 150 F.3d
561, 563 (6th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original).
The Officers’ briefs acknowledge these requirements, but nonetheless argue that the district
court drew impermissible inferences and incorrectly determined that there were disputed issues of
fact that could not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment. We disagree. While Jeffery, Sr.
is unavailable to recount what happened, Jeffery, Jr. and Jennings present a very different picture of
what took place, suggesting that it was unreasonable for the Officers to open fire. The Officers
maintain that the district court drew impermissible inferences and relied on speculation to conclude
that there were material questions of fact, but the district court’s conclusions find ample concrete and
non-speculative support in the deposition testimony of Jeffery, Jr. and Jennings. As such, the district
court’s thorough and thoughtful opinion appears to have correctly determined that the details of what
took place are in dispute and must be resolved by a trier of fact.
Instead of acknowledging the factual dispute and conceding the plaintiff’s version of the
events, the Officers take the impermissible approach of arguing that the facts should be viewed in
a light most favorable to them. Even if a defendant appealing the denial of qualified immunity
disputes the district court’s factual conclusions, he or she “must be prepared to overlook any factual
dispute and to concede an interpretation of the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff’s
case.” Everson, 556 F.3d at 496 (quoting Berryman v. Rieger, 150 F.3d 561, 562 (6th Cir. 1998)
(internal quotation marks omitted). The Officers do not adhere to this jurisdictional requirement and
argue, based on their testimony, that the “undisputed” evidence establishes that Jeffery, Sr. was
armed. However, this overlooks Jeffery, Jr.’s testimony that his father had dropped the gun before
Case: 10-4070 Document: 006110922561 Filed: 04/08/2011 Page: 5
No. 10-4070
Stephens v. City of Akron, et al.
Page 5
the Officers got out of their car. Similarly, the Officers overlook Jennings’s testimony that Jeffery,
Sr. was complying with their directions to get on the ground, and argue that he was actually reaching
for his gun. By arguing that this Court should disregard the evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim,
the Officers fail to concede an interpretation of facts most favorable to the plaintiff. This approach
is wholly inconsistent with our limited jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals from denials of
qualified immunity on issues of law.
III.
The Officers’ appeal does not present an issue of law but instead challenges the district
court’s conclusion that there are disputed issues of fact surrounding the shooting of Jeffery, Sr. We
are therefore precluded from taking jurisdiction over this issue and DISMISS the appeal.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?