Mary Jane Gross, et al v. Dearborn Heights, City of, et al
Filing
OPINION filed : The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, decision not for publication. Martha Craig Daughtrey (AUTHORING), John M. Rogers and Bernice Bouie Donald, Circuit Judges.
Case: 14-1178
Document: 32-2
Filed: 09/08/2015
Page: 1
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0626n.06
No. 14-1178
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MARY JANE GROSS and TERRY GROSS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF DEARBORN HEIGHTS et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
BEFORE:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FILED
Sep 08, 2015
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
DAUGHTREY, ROGERS, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, we are asked by the
plaintiffs, Mary Gross and her husband, Terry Gross, to reverse the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to the defendants: Officer Nicholas Szopko, Corporal Christopher Pellerito,
Officer Michael Fraser, and Sergeant Joanne Beedle-Peer—all members of the Dearborn Heights
Police Department—and the City of Dearborn Heights. The Grosses’ § 1983 complaint charged
the officers with failure to “knock and announce” on entry to their residence and with use of
excessive force during Mary Gross’s arrest, both in violation of the Fourth Amendment; with
unconstitutional retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and with deliberate indifference
to Mary Gross’s serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. They also
Case: 14-1178
Document: 32-2
Filed: 09/08/2015
Page: 2
No. 14-1178
Gross v. City of Dearborn
claimed that the City was liable based on its “custom, policy and practices,” failure to train, and
failure to provide medical treatment for Mary Gross’s objectively serious injury.
In granting summary judgment to the individual defendants, the district court determined
that no genuine dispute of material fact existed as to any of the Grosses’ claims against the
officers, that the officers had not engaged in any constitutional violations, and that the officers
were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. After determining that the individual officers were
not liable, the court also granted summary judgment to the City. Because we conclude, to the
contrary, that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to at least some of the plaintiffs’
claims, we find it necessary to reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further
proceedings.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
There is no real disagreement as to the preliminary facts in this case. The complaint
stems from an incident in August 2012, when Dearborn Heights police officers Officer Nicholas
Szopko, Corporal Christopher Pellerito, and Sergeant Joanne Beedle-Peer arrived at the
residence of Mary Gross to execute a warrant for her arrest. The warrant, issued by the State of
Kentucky, sought her extradition for felony drug-trafficking, even though she was 66 years old at
the time and a Michigan resident with no prior arrest history. Dearborn Heights officers had
previously attempted to execute the same extradition warrant five months earlier, in March 2012.
On that occasion, Mary Gross informed the officers that they were pursuing a case of mistaken
identity, that her sister Margaret had used Mary’s name to open numerous credit cards in
Kentucky, and that the warrant should be for Margaret, not Mary. The officers lacked a mug
shot or fingerprints for the person identified in the Kentucky warrant and thus were unable to
verify that the warrant was actually for Mary Gross; as a result, they did not arrest her in March.
-2-
Case: 14-1178
Document: 32-2
Filed: 09/08/2015
Page: 3
No. 14-1178
Gross v. City of Dearborn
What is disputed concerns events that occurred when officers returned to the Grosses’
residence in August, after receiving another Kentucky extradition warrant in the name of Mary
Gross. Included with the warrant were a photograph of Mary Gross and a letter confirming that
she was the individual wanted by Kentucky. According to the Grosses, the officers gained entry
to the house illegally by misrepresenting their purpose, telling Terry Gross at his back door that a
neighbor had called and asked the police department to make a welfare check at his house. An
audiotaped recording of the encounter reflects that Officer Szopko, standing outside the door,
asked the Grosses to identify themselves. Mary Gross provided her name, but when Officer
Szopko told her to come out of the house, she refused.
Because Mary Gross failed to follow Officer Szopko’s order, he and the other officers
decided to enter the house. From this point on, the parties offer differing accounts as to how the
defendants gained entry and what followed once they were inside the kitchen. Terry Gross
testified that an officer told him that if he did not open the door, they would “break it down”; that
after he unlatched the door, an officer “pulled the door open”; that this officer walked Terry
Gross into the kitchen and instructed him to sit down; and that another officer then ran into the
house, grabbed Mary’s arm and “started pulling on it.” He conceded that the officers had
knocked on his back door but denied that they had mentioned the arrest warrant until after they
entered the kitchen. Officer Szopko testified to a different version of the facts, saying that during
his initial conversation with Terry Gross, the back door was propped open; that he spoke with
Terry Gross from the threshold of the open door; that he grabbed onto Mary Gross’s arm, which
was within his reach from the threshold, after advising her of the warrant for her arrest; that
Mary Gross pulled her arm out of his grip and, thus, “resisted arrest”; and that he went into the
house to get hold of her again. Corporal Pellerito testified that he and Officer Szopko entered the
-3-
Case: 14-1178
Document: 32-2
Filed: 09/08/2015
Page: 4
No. 14-1178
Gross v. City of Dearborn
Grosses’ home because, after informing Mary Gross of the warrant for her arrest, she retreated
inside the kitchen and declined to come outside.
What happened next is also unclear. Officer Szopko’s audiotape recording reflects that
after Mary Gross refused to come out of the house, a commotion ensued inside the house. The
following was recorded after the initial commotion:
Mary: I didn’t do nothing, I didn’t do nothing.
Officer: Come here, Mary, come on out.
Officer: Have a seat, have a seat, have a seat.
Officer: Mary, we have a warrant for your arrest.
Mary: What for? Let me go.
Officer: There’s a warrant for your arrest. There’s a warrant for your arrest.
Mary: Can I get my clothes on first? Please?
Terry: Let her get some clothes on.
Officer: We’ll grab the clothes.
Terry: Let her go in there and put some clothes on.
Officer: Miss, Miss, stop.
Officer: She don’t need no clothes.
Mary: Oh, God. [second commotion]
Officer: Don’t resist.
Officer: Do not resist.
Mary: You broke my leg. God, oh, oh, oh.
Officer: Don’t resist.
-4-
Case: 14-1178
Document: 32-2
Filed: 09/08/2015
Page: 5
No. 14-1178
Gross v. City of Dearborn
The parties also provided versions of the arrest that both aligned with and deviated from
the recording. Mary Gross testified that “the first thing [the defendants] did is they came in and
they grabbed me and put my face into the utensils hanging on the wall . . . . [A]nd then . . . the
big heavy one took my knee and pushed it into the cabinet door thing and broke my knee.” She
claimed that, after an officer injured her knee, she began to hold onto the sink counter while the
officers attempted to take physical custody of her. Terry Gross testified that two officers first
handcuffed Mary Gross and “had ahold of her” before they announced that they had a warrant
for her arrest. He also said that when Mary Gross asked to get her clothes, the officers refused
her request and slammed her into the counter, “forced [her head] down into the dish rack,” and
“pulled her up and banged her into the counter and broke her leg.”
In contrast, Officer Szopko testified that Mary Gross asked for clothing only after she
was arrested and handcuffed. He said that in the course of attempting to take custody of her,
Mary Gross struggled with Corporal Pellerito by “wrenching her body back and forth and trying
to pull her arms away from [them],” that she continued to hold her arms underneath her body
while they attempted to handcuff her by against the counter, and that they told her to stop
resisting throughout this encounter. Officer Szopko said that Mary Gross was “yelling that it
wasn’t her . . . that it was her sister.” He also testified that he did not recall her saying anything
at the house about her leg being broken, although he remembered seeing her limping after they
arrived at the jail. Officer Szopko and Corporal Pellerito both denied using any force on Mary
Gross beyond grabbing her arm to handcuff her.
After Mary Gross was handcuffed, she was escorted to Sergeant Beedle-Peer’s patrol car
by Officer Szopko and Corporal Pellerito. How that was accomplished was also disputed by the
parties. Mary Gross claimed that she could not walk to the car and was made to hop on one foot.
-5-
Case: 14-1178
Document: 32-2
Filed: 09/08/2015
Page: 6
No. 14-1178
Gross v. City of Dearborn
Just as none of the officers on the scene recalled hearing Mary Gross complain of an injury, no
one recalled that she had difficulty getting out of the house and into the patrol car. However, the
audiotape recording includes the following exchange between Mary Gross and the officers,
occurring after Mary Gross exclaimed that her leg had been broken:
Mary: Oh, God.
Officer: Instead of putting your weight on your foot, hop.
Mary: My knee’s broke.
Officer: Okay . . . .
Officer: Put your butt right down there on the chair.
Mary: Oh, God, my knee’s broke.
Officer: Okay, just get yourself back in there, okay?
Mary: Oh, God.
Officer Szopko admitted that after they arrived at the Dearborn Heights jail, he saw Mary
Gross limping and heard her say that “her leg, her knee hurt” while he was escorting her inside.
Two videotapings of the booking area produced by defendants show Mary Gross limping into the
booking area with the assistance of Officer Szopko and Sergeant Beedle-Peer, repeatedly
rubbing her knee, and asking Officer Szopko and a booking officer at the jail, Michael Fraser,
not to “send [her] anywhere until [she can] go see a doctor to get this fixed.” She needed the
assistance of Officer Szopko to stand while her booking photos were made, and she was seated
in a wheelchair by Officers Szopko before having her fingerprints taken by Officer Fraser. She
was then wheeled out of the booking area in the wheelchair.
Mary Gross was held at the Dearborn Heights jail for over 15 hours and incarcerated in
the Wayne County Jail for five days. Eventually, Kentucky officials realized that it was, in fact,
-6-
Case: 14-1178
Document: 32-2
Filed: 09/08/2015
Page: 7
No. 14-1178
Gross v. City of Dearborn
Mary Gross’s sister, Margaret, who was wanted in Kentucky, and Mary Gross was released from
custody. She was wheeled from her cell to the jail’s exit in a wheelchair and carried by Terry
Gross from there to their car. When she sought medical attention after her release, she was xrayed and diagnosed as having suffered two fractures of her right tibia at the tibial plateau just
below the knee, a lumbar compression fracture in her spine, facial abrasions, and arm and
shoulder contusions.
The Grosses initially filed suit against Officer Szopko, Corporal Pellerito, Officer Fraser,
and the City of Dearborn Heights in state court, asserting that the defendants’ conduct in
arresting Mary Gross had violated her federal constitutional rights. The suit was removed to
federal court, and the Grosses filed an amended complaint, adding Sergeant Beedle-Peer as a
defendant. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, arguing that the officers
were entitled to qualified immunity and that, because they did not commit constitutional
violations, the Grosses’ municipal liability and derivative claims could not survive. The district
court granted the motion, ruling that the defendants had entered the plaintiff’s residence only
after knocking and announcing their purpose; that Mary Gross had resisted arrest prior to being
handcuffed and that use of force to arrest her was therefore justified; that the Grosses provided
no factual basis for their claim that the officers’ use of force on Mary Gross was retaliatory; and
that Mary Gross’s injury was not obvious because it was discovered only after an x-ray. This
appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Our review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment is conducted de novo.
Mazur v. Young, 507 F.3d 1013, 1016 (6th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the
pleadings, the discovery and the disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits, ‘show that there
-7-
Case: 14-1178
Document: 32-2
Filed: 09/08/2015
Page: 8
No. 14-1178
Gross v. City of Dearborn
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.’” Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 471 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).
“There is no genuine issue for trial [if] the record ‘taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier
of fact to find for the non-moving party.’” Id. (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus., Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). Of primary significance in this case is that, in ruling on
the motion, “the district court must construe the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the nonmoving party.” Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 517 F.3d 321, 332 (6th Cir.
2008). Nevertheless, “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving
party is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” V & M Star Steel v. Centimark
Corp., 678 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
252 (1986)).
Despite our lengthy discussion of the facts in this case, the resolution of the principal
issues on appeal requires little in the way of legal analysis. As the background summary set out
above demonstrates, the record is replete with genuine disputes of material fact that rule out
summary judgment and necessitate submission of those issues to a trier of fact. Despite the
standard that requires a district court to construe all evidence and all reasonable inferences from
that evidence in the plaintiffs’ favor when a “genuine” dispute exists, the district court in this
case repeatedly made findings of fact by crediting the officers’ versions of what transpired at the
time of Mary Gross’s arrest. The district court justified its decision to do so based on the
Supreme Court’s ruling that “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is
blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should
not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”
-8-
Case: 14-1178
Document: 32-2
Filed: 09/08/2015
Page: 9
No. 14-1178
Gross v. City of Dearborn
Gross v. City of Dearborn Heights, No. 12-15268, 2014 WL 346017, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Jan 30,
2014) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)).
The “blatantly contradictory record” identified by the district court in this case was the
audiotaped recording made at the Grosses’ residence and the videotapes made at police
headquarters. But the videotapes do little or nothing to refute Mary Gross’s account of how she
was injured and how serious the injury was, and the audiotape does more to muddle than to
clarify what happened at the time of her arrest. In short, we conclude that the entry of summary
judgment based on qualified immunity cannot be sustained and that the case must be remanded
for further proceedings on the claims against the individual officers.
With respect to the Grosses’ knock-and-announce claim for unlawful entry and seizure,
there are genuine disputes of material fact about whether the officers’ entry was forcible and
when the officers announced their purpose. Terry Gross testified that the officers forcibly
entered the home and that the officers announced their intent to arrest Mary Gross only after they
had grabbed her. Consistent with Terry Gross’s testimony, the audio recording of the encounter
captured a commotion shortly after Mary Gross refuses to come out of her home but before any
officer can be heard mentioning the warrant. Audio Recording 20:53–55. The audio recording
also captured the officers joking about “pushing grandpa aside.”
Id. at 20:59:30.
This
evidence—that the officers first forcibly entered the Grosses’ home, and, several seconds later,
announced that they had a warrant for Mary Gross’s arrest—creates genuine disputes of material
fact.
With respect to the Grosses’ excessive force claim, there is a genuine dispute of material
fact about when Mary Gross was handcuffed. Terry Gross testified that the officers handcuffed
Mary Gross before slamming her into her kitchen counter, forcing her head into her dish rack,
-9-
Case: 14-1178
Document: 32-2
Filed: 09/08/2015
Page: 10
No. 14-1178
Gross v. City of Dearborn
and breaking her leg. The district court disregarded Terry Gross’s testimony because the court
believed his testimony was clearly contradicted by the audio recording and Mary Gross’s
testimony. But, contrary to the district court’s determination, Terry Gross’s testimony about the
timing of the officers’ handcuffing of Mary Gross can be reconciled with the audio recording,
and the Grosses provide a plausible explanation for the inconsistencies between Terry Gross’s
and Mary Gross’s testimony. When Terry Gross’s testimony is considered, a genuine dispute of
material fact exists regarding the timing of Mary Gross’s handcuffing.
With respect to the Grosses’ claim of deliberate indifference to medical need, there is a
genuine dispute of material fact about whether Mary Gross’s medical need was obvious and
whether the officers were aware of the need or of circumstances clearly indicating the existence
of a need. The district court determined that, because Mary Gross’s injury was discovered only
after an x-ray, her injury was not obvious. But there is a genuine dispute about its obviousness in
light of evidence that Mary Gross informed the officers at least three times that her leg was
broken: shortly after Szopko and Pellerito struck her knee, Audio Recording at 20:55, while she
was being escorted to the patrol car by Szopko, id. at 20:56:15, and again while she was being
placed in the car, id. at 20:57:14. The video recording of Mary Gross’s booking also shows her
unable to walk or stand without assistance, repeatedly rubbing her knee, and asking Szopko and
Fraser not to send her anywhere until she saw a doctor.
There is also a genuine dispute about the officers’ awareness of Mary Gross’s medical
need in light of evidence that she complained of a broken knee at the scene of her arrest, was told
by Szopko to “hop” instead of putting weight on her foot, Audio Recording at 20:56:15, limped
into the booking area with the assistance of Szopko and Beedle-Peer, rubbed her knee repeatedly,
asked Szopko and Michael Fraser to not “send [her] anywhere until [she can] go see a doctor to
-10-
Case: 14-1178
Document: 32-2
Filed: 09/08/2015
Page: 11
No. 14-1178
Gross v. City of Dearborn
get this fixed,” needed the assistance of Szopko to stand while taking her booking photos, was
placed in a wheelchair by Szopko and Fraser, had her fingerprints taken by Fraser while in a
wheelchair, and was wheeled out of the booking area. Video Recording 21:16:38-21:17:01,
21:17:34-21:18:04,
21:19:04-21:20:56,
21:31:13-21:33:05,
21:45:55-21:49:11,
21:53:55-
21:54:04.
However, the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Grosses’ First
Amendment retaliation claim was correct. The Grosses allege that the officers assaulted Mary
Gross during the arrest in retaliation for her request for clothing.
In a First Amendment
retaliation claim, the constitutionally protected activity—here, the request for clothing—must be
a motivating factor behind the retaliatory act. Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673, 678 (6th Cir. 1998);
see also Leonard v. Robinson, 477 F.3d 347, 355 (6th Cir. 2007). The Grosses provide nothing
to suggest that the officers’ use of force was motivated by the request for clothing. Accordingly,
grant of summary judgment on this claim was proper.
Because the district court’s dismissals of the Grosses’ municipal liability claims and
Terry Gross’s derivative claims for loss of consortium were based on its dismissal of the
underlying claims, the district court should reconsider those claims on remand. The district
court’s additional reason for rejecting Terry Gross’s loss of consortium claim—that he had failed
to show an injury—was in error. This argument was not properly raised by the defendants
because it was not argued until the defendants’ reply brief. In reconsidering Terry Gross’s loss
of consortium on remand, the district court should consider Terry Gross’s testimony that, for
several months after the incident, he did “all the cooking, washing, cleaning, all the everything,”
and that he had sought counseling because of “trouble with [his] dreams and flashbacks and
everything like that and guilt.”
-11-
Case: 14-1178
Document: 32-2
Filed: 09/08/2015
Page: 12
No. 14-1178
Gross v. City of Dearborn
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and
REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
-12-
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?