Gene Raymond Bell, Jr. v. City of Southfield, Mich.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: July 16, 2024
• Docket: 24-1032
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 24a0305n.06

Case No. 24-1032

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jul 16, 2024 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk GENE RAYMOND BELL, JR, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN, ) MICHIGAN Defendant ) ) OPINION ANTHONIE KORKIS, Officer; ARTHUR ) BRIDGEFORTH, Officer; THOMAS ) LANGEWICZ, II, Officer, ) ) Defendants-Appellants. )

Before: WHITE, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. In police encounters, the parties often dispute who started it.

Gene Bell claims officers used excessive force when they removed him from his car during a traffic

stop. The officers, in turn, allege Bell instigated by physically resisting. Because it’s not our role

to decide “who started it,” we dismiss.

During a traffic stop, Gene Bell refused to provide his license and registration despite

repeated requests from Officer Anthonie Korkis. As Officer Korkis waited for other units to arrive,

he told Bell that if he continued to refuse, he’d be forcibly removed from his car and arrested for No. 24-1032, Bell v. City of Southfield

obstruction. A few minutes later, Officer Korkis made good on his warning, reaching in to unlock

Bell’s car door.

Here’s where accounts diverge. The officers claim Bell slapped Officer Korkis’s hand

away from the lock. Bell disagrees, claiming he never resisted and the force against him was

unprovoked. Everyone agrees Bell was then pulled from his car, tased, and arrested.

Bell sued, claiming the officers used excessive force when they (1) pulled him from the car

and (2) tased him during arrest. The officers invoked qualified immunity, which we granted on

the latter claim based on video footage that clearly showed Bell was resisting arrest when officers

tased him. Bell v. City of Southfield (Bell I), 37 F.4th 362, 367–68 (6th Cir. 2022); see Scott v.

Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). But because video footage was inconclusive on what happened

inside the car—namely, whether Bell physically resisted by slapping Officer Korkis’s hand

away—we lacked jurisdiction over that factual dispute and dismissed. Bell I, 37 F.4th at 366.

After discovery, the officers again asserted qualified immunity in a motion for summary

judgment. The district court denied the officers’ motion, and the officers once again appealed.

Ordinarily, denials of summary judgment aren’t immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. But when defendants assert and are denied qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction to

review legal questions but not factual ones. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985); Bell

I, 47 F.4th at 365.

The officers repeat their claim that Bell slapped Officer Korkis’s hand before they used

force against him. Appellant Br. 30 (“Plaintiff slapped Ofc. Korkis’ hand inside the vehicle.”); id.

at 31 (noting “verbal[] and physical[]” resistance (emphasis added)). Bell maintains he didn’t.

The video footage still doesn’t reveal the truth. Bell I, 37 F.4th at 366. Discovery didn’t either.

-2- No. 24-1032, Bell v. City of Southfield

So at the end of the day, we’re left with the very same factual dispute we declined to address in

Bell I. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to resolve the officers’ claim to immunity.

The officers suggest otherwise, pointing to inconsistencies in Bell’s deposition testimony.

But Bell maintains he didn’t slap Officer Korkis. So any inconsistency merely affects his

credibility; it doesn’t conclusively establish the truth. Cf. United States v. Acosta, 924 F.3d 288,

303 (6th Cir. 2019). And Bell’s credibility is a matter for the jury—not us.

Because the officers’ appeal disputes whether Bell physically resisted, we lack jurisdiction

over it.1 We dismiss.

1 The officers never argue their force would’ve been justified even if Bell hadn’t slapped Officer Korkis’s hand. See Bell I, 37 F.4th at 366 n.1. We therefore do not consider that legal question.

-3-