Brayton Groth sued three Birmingham, Michigan police officers—Nicholas Hill, Scott McIntyre, and Raymond Faes—under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and state-law torts following an encounter at his home. The officers moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity, but the district court denied their motions, concluding that a reasonable jury could find the force used was excessive. The officers appealed, arguing that Groth actively resisted and that the force was objectively reasonable. They also sought review of state-law claims for assault, battery, and malicious prosecution. The core dispute centered on whether Groth's actions constituted active resistance or merely passive non-compliance, a factual question that the officers contested while the district court found in Groth's favor.
The Sixth Circuit began by addressing the threshold issue of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Citing Johnson v. Jones, the court explained that it lacks jurisdiction to review a qualified immunity denial when the defendant's appeal turns on a dispute over the facts. To proceed, defendants must either accept the plaintiff's version of the facts or provide clear video evidence that resolves the dispute. Here, the officers refused to concede the district court's finding that Groth engaged in at most passive resistance. They instead advanced a narrative that Groth was aggressive, violent, and actively resisting. The court examined the body-camera footage and found it insufficient to resolve these disputes. The video was often obstructed by the officers' bodies, the lighting was poor, and critical moments were unclear. Because the footage did not 'blatantly contradict' the district court's account, the court had to accept the plaintiff's version of the facts for the purpose of the appeal. Under that version, the officers' use of force—including a takedown, multiple taser deployments, and drive stuns—could be found unreasonable. Since the outcome of the qualified immunity analysis depended on these disputed facts, the court could not review the legal arguments. The court also rejected the officers' attempt to use pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the state-law claims, noting that malicious prosecution is not inextricably intertwined with the excessive-force issues and that there was no independent federal jurisdictional basis for the state claims.
The dismissal means the officers' qualified immunity defense remains unresolved at the appellate level, and the case must proceed to trial in the district court. The decision reinforces the strict application of the Johnson v. Jones standard in the Sixth Circuit, signaling that officers cannot bypass factual disputes on interlocutory appeal by simply arguing that the force was reasonable under a different version of events. It also clarifies that pendent jurisdiction over state-law claims will not be exercised when the federal qualified immunity appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download