CA6: With multiple uses of excessive force, each must be analyzed

“Where ‘a plaintiff claims that excessive force was used multiple times, “the court must segment the incident into its constituent parts and consider the officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity at each step along the way.”’ Wright, 962 F.3d at 865 (quoting Smith v. City of Troy, 874 F.3d 938, 944 (6th Cir. 2017)). Here, Plaintiffs claim that Johns used excessive force in three ways: (1) by tasing Palma three times, (2) by taking initial shots at Palma, and (3) by continuing to shoot Palma even after Palma bent over with his hands on the ground. After viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Palma, if ‘a jury could conclude that [the defendant] engaged in gratuitous violence by using force beyond the scope of that which was reasonably necessary or justifiable,’ then the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage. …” Palma v. Johns, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 5252 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2022).*

This 2254 petitioner’s unspecific claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not properly presenting a Franks claim previously failed in state court for the same reason: No facts pled; no argument; no showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, the state court’s resolution was not an unreasonable application of Franks. Morton v. Shaw, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33481 (S.D.Miss. Jan. 31, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.