6th Circuit

Plaintiff pled plausible retaliation claim against city manager and police officers, alleging that he criticized city manager at meetings, that officers convinced prosecutor to charge him with stalking city manager, and that no reasonable and prudent person would believe that any of his alleged actions—driving two cars behind city manager on main access road three years earlier, presence while city manager was campaigning in public three years earlier, and gathering in city hall parking lot with other individuals after city council meetings—qualified as harassment.

Court could not consider exhibits relating to police investigation on motion to dismiss; police report, timeline of events, and criminal complaint against resident could not be used on motion to dismiss to establish truth about what officers learned in their investigation.

Use of stun gun during pre-arrest flight was not excessive force; even if a reasonable police officer would not have aimed stun gun at arrestee’s head, officer’s alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Court affords officers qualified immunity for takedown of plaintiff; holds summary judgment inappropriate for excessive force claim based on officers kneeling on plaintiff’s back after takedown due to factual dispute about circumstances, but holds crediting plaintiffs account of event, officers not entitled to qualified immunity because “applying pressure to the back of a prone suspect who no longer resists arrest and poses no flight risk is an objectively unreasonable use of force”.

Clearly established that individual had constitutional right not to be shot with stun gun when he was not actively resisting.

Officer’s claim that plaintiff's guilty plea to charge of attempting to resist arrest barred him from asserting that officer violated his rights by gratuitously punching him in the face was effectively reviewable on appeal, and thus court of appeals lacked jurisdiction under collateral order doctrine over officer’s Heck claim on interlocutory appeal of district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

Actual malice is not required to succeed on 4th Amendment malicious prosecution claim, but defendant must have made deliberate or reckless falsehoods; mere negligence will not create liability; fact that police officer did not make decision to prosecute does not absolve officer from liability, where officer included falsehoods in investigatory materials, knowing that prosecutorial reliance was likely and those materials actually influenced prosecutors decision to bring charges.

Clearly established that suicidal individual has right not to be shot unless he poses threat of serious or deadly harm to officers; clearly established by 2018 that officer had an obligation under due process clause to provide adequate medical care after shooting.

Fact that particular officer did not perform arrest at issue did not preclude officer from obligation, under Michigan law, to ensure arrestee received probable cause hearing within 48 hours; fact that multiple officers were involved in arrest did not constitute extraordinary circumstances that could merit detention of arrestee past 48 hours without probable cause hearing.

Neither officers' receipt of emergency services call reporting a potential verbal and physical altercation outside of suspect's home nor fact that officer, when investigating report of potential dispute, observed a female in the home, in combination with suspect's refusal to let officers speak to anyone inside home, established exigent circumstances that could support warrantless entry into home.