Heeter et al v. Bowers et al

Filing 48

ORDER GRANTING IN PART re 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. GRANTING IN PART as to the Plaintiffs state-law claims against Officer Bowers in his official capacity and the Columbus Police Department. In line with the Sixth Circuits directive, the rest of this Courts analysis on Defendants Motion stands. (ECF No. 41 at 29). Signed by Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 8/28/2024. (cw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KAREN HEETER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KENNETH BOWERS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 2:20-cv-6481
Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

ORDER
This matter is before this Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
21) following a limited remand from the Sixth Circuit “affirm[ing] the judgment of [this Court] in
all but one respect”: that this Court is “to grant the City (that is, Officer Bowers in his official
capacity and the Columbus Police Department) summary judgment” on the Plaintiffs’ state-law
claims. (ECF No. 41 at 29).
Given the limited nature of the Sixth Circuit’s remand, this Court considers only the
Plaintiffs’ state-law claims against Officer Bowers in his official capacity and the Columbus Police
Department. Previously, “[t]his Court conclude[d] that the disputed facts could lead a reasonable
jury to believe that Defendant Bowers acted in a wanton or reckless manner by using more force
than was necessary to neutralize Mr. Heeter and failing to address his apparent and serious medical
needs afterward,” so “[t]his Court therefore DENIE[D] Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment on the state law claims.” (ECF No. 37 at 34). On appeal, the Sixth Circuit clarified that
the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Columbus Police Department and Officer Bowers in his official
capacity are effectively claims against the City of Columbus. (ECF No. 41 at 28). As the City “is
entitled to [Ohio Revised Code ]§ 2744.02’s ‘broad grant of immunity’ and therefore not liable for

1

any of the Heeters’ state-law claims,” summary judgment in the Defendants’ favor is appropriate.
Id. at 29). So, this Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 21) as to the Plaintiffs’ state-law claims against Officer Bowers in his official capacity and the
Columbus Police Department. In line with the Sixth Circuit’s directive, the rest of this Court’s
analysis on Defendants’ Motion stands. (ECF No. 41 at 29).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ALGENON L. MARBLEY
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: August 28, 2024

2