Estate of Corey Hill , by Personal Representative Rudolph Hill v. Christopher Miracle

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 17a0077p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ESTATE OF COREY H ILL , by Personal Representative
Rudolph Hill,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER M IRACLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
┐
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
┘
No. 16-1818
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:15-cv-10079—Gershwin A. Drain, District Judge.
Argued: January 25, 2017
Decided and Filed: April 4, 2017
Before: GILMAN, GRIFFIN, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Mary M. Mara, OAKLAND COUNTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, Pontiac,
Michigan, for Appellant. Stanley I. Okoli, ROMANO LAW, P.L.L.C., Pleasant Ridge,
Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mary M. Mara, OAKLAND COUNTY CORPORATION
COUNSEL, Pontiac, Michigan, for Appellant. Stanley I. Okoli, ROMANO LAW, P.L.L.C.,
Pleasant Ridge, Michigan, for Appellee.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. This case involves the question of whether a
deputy sheriff used excessive force in tasing a combative and disoriented diabetic suffering a
>

-- 1 of 13 --

No. 16-1818 Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle Page 2
hypoglycemic episode in order for the attending paramedics to stabilize his life-threatening
condition. The district court denied the deputy’s motion for qualified and governmental
immunity. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court, and
REMAND the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual background
In June 2013, Corey Hill suffered a diabetic emergency in his home due to his low blood-
sugar level. Paramedics with Star Emergency Medical Service were dispatched to Hill’s home at
3:20 p.m. after Hill’s girlfriend, Melanie Worrall, called 911 for an ambulance. Two ambulance
units and four paramedics, including Luke Streeter, arrived at the home and proceeded to the
bedroom where Hill was lying down. Despite finding Hill very disoriented, the paramedics
introduced themselves and tried to explain that they needed to check his blood-sugar level.
Streeter attempted to prick Hill’s finger for this purpose, but an agitated and combative Hill
pulled back from the paramedics. Eventually, Streeter managed to prick Hill’s finger, leading to
the determination that Hill’s blood-sugar level was extremely low at 38. A normal blood-sugar
range is anywhere between 60 and 110, and a blood-sugar level below that range can cause
hypoglycemia. As blood sugar falls, the common effects are for a person to lose consciousness,
become combative and confused, or suffer a seizure. A blood-sugar level of 38 is therefore
considered a medical emergency and, if left untreated, can lead to prolonged seizure and death.
Deputy Christopher Miracle of the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department arrived at Hill’s
home at some point after Streeter measured Hill’s blood-sugar level. As a member of the road
patrol, Miracle’s duties included responding to calls for emergency medical services. He had
encountered over a dozen diabetic emergencies throughout his career and was aware that persons
suffering from low blood-sugar levels are often disoriented and unaware of their surroundings.
When Miracle arrived, the paramedics were attempting to intravenously administer dextrose to
Hill in order to raise his blood-sugar level. Hill became increasingly combative in resisting the
paramedics’ efforts to insert an IV catheter into his arm.

-- 2 of 13 --

No. 16-1818 Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle Page 3
Streeter was finally able to insert the catheter while the other paramedics held Hill down
to the bed. At this point, a completely disoriented Hill swung a fist towards Streeter and ripped
the catheter from his arm, causing blood to spray from the open vein. Streeter managed to
finally stop the bleeding, but Hill continued to kick, swing, and swear at the paramedics as they
tried to hold him down.
Miracle, who at that point had not joined in the attempt to physically restrain Hill,
ordered Hill to “relax.” When Hill continued to kick and swing, Miracle informed Hill that he
(Miracle) was going to use his taser. Miracle then deployed his taser in drive-stun mode directly
to Hill’s right thigh.
To use a taser in drive-stun mode, an officer removes the hooks that spring from a taser
and holds the device directly against a person’s skin. Drive-stun mode is usually not
recommended because keeping the taser in contact with a person’s skin is difficult, yet necessary
to render the taser effective. But Miracle did not want to shoot the hooks of his taser directly
into Hill and, in addition, thought that deploying his taser in drive-stun mode was a better option
than “hands-on stuff” because Miracle wanted to “minimize [the] damage” and “didn’t really
know everything that was going on medically.” After Miracle held the taser against Hill’s thigh
for a few seconds, Hill calmed down long enough for Streeter to reestablish the IV catheter and
administer dextrose. As noted by Streeter, Hill “became an angel” and was “very apologetic”
after the dextrose kicked in.
Streeter then checked Hill’s blood-sugar levels and performed an electrocardiogram test.
The results of both tests were normal. Hill denied being in any pain at the time, but the
paramedics nonetheless transported Hill to McLaren Oakland Hospital, where his care was
transferred to Dr. Brian Tweedle. Once again, Hill’s blood-sugar level was measured as being
within normal range. Medical records from the hospital note a taser puncture wound on Hill’s
right thigh, but Dr. Tweedle testified that no treatment was rendered for the wound because it
was not infected. Hill claims that, as a result of this incident, he suffered burns on his right thigh
and that his diabetes worsened.

-- 3 of 13 --

No. 16-1818 Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle Page 4
B. Procedural background
Hill filed suit against Miracle in January 2015 in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. He brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Miracle
had used excessive force in violation of Hill’s Fourth Amendment rights when Miracle deployed
his taser. Hill also brought state-law claims of assault and battery and of intentional infliction of
emotional distress. In May 2015, Hill died due to complications from his diabetes. The court
subsequently entered an order substituting Rudolph Hill as the personal representative of Corey
Hill’s estate.
Miracle moved for summary judgment on all of Hill’s claims in March 2016. The district
court granted summary judgment in favor of Miracle on Hill’s claim of intentional infliction of
emotional distress. But the court denied Miracle’s motion for summary judgment on the § 1983
and the assault-and-battery claims. The court held that, based on the facts as viewed in the light
most favorable to Hill, Miracle violated Hill’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights in
deploying the taser. It therefore denied Miracle’s qualified-immunity defense. In addition, the
court rejected Miracle’s argument that governmental immunity under Michigan law entitled him
to summary judgment on Hill’s claim of assault and battery. Miracle has timely appealed the
court’s rulings with respect to both the § 1983 and the assault-and-battery claims.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of review
Our jurisdiction over orders denying qualified immunity is narrow. Harrison v. Ash,
539 F.3d 510, 517 (6th Cir. 2008). “A defendant who is denied qualified immunity may file an
interlocutory appeal with this Court only if that appeal involves the abstract or pure legal issue of
whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”
Berryman v. Rieger, 150 F.3d 561, 563 (6th Cir. 1998). A defendant is therefore “required to
limit her argument to questions of law premised on facts taken in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Meals v. City of Memphis, 493 F.3d 720, 726-27 (6th Cir. 2007).

-- 4 of 13 --

No. 16-1818 Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle Page 5
Where jurisdiction is appropriate, we review de novo the denial of summary judgment on
the basis of qualified immunity. Martin v. City of Broadview Heights, 712 F.3d 951, 957 (6th
Cir. 2013). We similarly review de novo the denial of governmental immunity under Michigan
law when it presents a purely legal question. Reilly v. Vadlamudi, 680 F.3d 617, 622 (6th Cir.
2012).
B. Miracle’s qualified-immunity defense
Qualified immunity shields “government officials ‘from liability for civil damages
insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
which a reasonable person would have known.’” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)
(quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). This doctrine “balances two
important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power
irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when
they perform their duties reasonably.” Id.
Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. Sheets v. Mullins, 287 F.3d 581, 586 (6th
Cir. 2002). The defendant therefore “bears the burden of pleading the defense, but the plaintiff
bears the burden of showing that the defendant’s conduct violated a right so clearly established
that a reasonable official in his position would have clearly understood that he or she was under
an affirmative duty to refrain from such conduct.” Id. In other words, “[t]he ultimate burden of
proof is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Id.
We ask two questions in evaluating whether a law-enforcement officer is entitled to
qualified immunity on an excessive-force claim: “(1) whether the officer violated the plaintiff’s
constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether that constitutional right was
clearly established at the time of the incident.” Kent v. Oakland County, 810 F.3d 384, 390 (6th
Cir. 2016). This analysis can be performed in any order. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. In analyzing
both of these questions, the district court held that Miracle was not entitled to summary judgment
on his claim of qualified immunity. We respectfully disagree.

-- 5 of 13 --

No. 16-1818 Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle Page 6
1. Miracle did not violate Hill’s Fourth Amendment rights.
To evaluate whether an officer has used excessive force in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, we employ an objective-reasonableness test, asking “whether the officers’ actions
are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without
regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We must keep in mind that “[t]he ‘reasonableness’ of a
particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,
rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. at 396. Graham proceeds to set out a three-
factor test to aid the courts in assessing objective reasonableness in the typical situation of a law-
enforcement officer accused in a civil suit of using excessive force. Those three factors are:
(1) “the severity of the crime at issue,” (2) “whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the
safety of the officers or others,” and (3) “whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to
evade arrest by flight.” Id.
The district court determined that the Graham factors “favor a finding that Defendant
acted objectively unreasonable when he tasered Plaintiff.” Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle, No.
15-CV-10079, 2016 WL 3136066, at *5 (E.D. Mich. June 3, 2016). But applying the Graham
factors to the situation that Miracle faced is equivalent to a baseball player entering the batter’s
box with two strikes already against him. In other words, because Hill had not committed a
crime and was not resisting arrest, two of the three Graham factors automatically weighed
against Miracle. The key problem is that the district court tried to apply the Graham factors to a
completely different factual situation—a medical emergency—where there was no crime, no
resisting of arrest, and no direct threat to the law-enforcement officer. In doing so, the court
failed to see the forest (the overall standard of objective reasonableness) for the trees (the three
factors to use as an aid in assessing objective reasonableness in the typical situation).
We fully sympathize with the district court’s dilemma, however, because no appellate
court has previously provided any guidance on how to assess objective reasonableness in the
present atypical situation of a medical emergency. In fact, most of the cases dealing with
excessive force and taser use simply hold that an officer does not use excessive force by tasing a
person who is actively resisting arrest, but does use excessive force if that person is not resisting

-- 6 of 13 --

No. 16-1818 Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle Page 7
arrest. See, e.g., Rudlaff v. Gillispie, 791 F.3d 638, 642 (6th Cir. 2015) (“When a suspect
actively resists arrest, the police can use a taser . . . to subdue him; but when a suspect does not
resist, or has stopped resisting, they cannot.”); Cockrell v. City of Cincinnati, 468 F. App’x 491,
495-96 (6th Cir. 2012) (collecting cases) (drawing a distinction between cases where a plaintiff
was tased while “actively resisting arrest by physically struggling with, threatening, or
disobeying officers” and cases where a law-enforcement officer tases “a plaintiff who has done
nothing to resist arrest or is already detained”).
The closest case in our circuit is Caie v. West Bloomfield Township, 485 F. App’x 92 (6th
Cir. 2012), which involved a roughly comparable set of facts. In that case, officers responded to
an emergency call from the plaintiff’s brother and arrived to find a depressed, intoxicated, and
suicidal Caie submerged chest-deep in a lake. In declining the officers’ requests to leave the
water, Caie “repeatedly told the officers that he wanted to die and asked what he would have to
do to get them to shoot him.” Id. at 94. Caie eventually came out of the water and sat on the
ground, but continued to behave erratically, making comments about fighting the police and
exhibiting dramatic mood swings. He refused to comply with the officers’ requests to transport
him to the hospital and so, after several minutes, one of the officers “signaled to the other
officers that they were going to have to take physical control of [Caie] in order to transport him
to the hospital.” Id.
Caie began to run and flail his arms violently, but the officers eventually took him to the
ground. When Caie refused to move his hands behind his back, an officer applied a taser in
drive-stun mode to Caie’s back in order to handcuff him. Caie was eventually taken to an
ambulance for transport to the hospital. The Caie court held that the officer’s “single use of the
taser in drive-stun mode did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” Id. at 96. In so holding,
the court reasoned as follows:
While it is true that Plaintiff was not being arrested for a crime, his consumption
of a large quantity of alcohol and drugs, his erratic behavior, and his self-
proclaimed desire to provoke the officers into using deadly force could lead
reasonable officers to conclude that he was a threat to officer safety. Plaintiff
admits that he was suicidal, meaning that, at a minimum, he was a threat to his
own safety. In addition, Plaintiff’s attempts to flee—including getting behind the
wheel of his car and trying to drive away—undoubtedly posed a risk of harm to

-- 7 of 13 --

No. 16-1818 Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle Page 8
others with whom he might come into contact. [The officer] had every reason to
believe that, in his highly agitated, suicidal, and intoxicated state, Plaintiff was
potentially dangerous.
Id.
This eminently reasonable decision by the Caie court was reached despite the
inapplicability of the Graham three-factor test. Rather than continuing to struggle with this
dilemma, we suggest that a more tailored set of factors be considered in the medical-emergency
context, always aimed towards the ultimate goal of determining “whether the officers’ actions
are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.”
See Graham, 490 U.S. at 397 (internal quotation marks omitted). Where a situation does not fit
within the Graham test because the person in question has not committed a crime, is not resisting
arrest, and is not directly threatening the officer, the court should ask:
(1) Was the person experiencing a medical emergency that rendered him
incapable of making a rational decision under circumstances that posed an
immediate threat of serious harm to himself or others?
(2) Was some degree of force reasonably necessary to ameliorate the
immediate threat?
(3) Was the force used more than reasonably necessary under the
circumstances (i.e., was it excessive)?
If the answers to the first two questions are “yes,” and the answer to the third question is “no,”
then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.
These questions and answers serve as a guide to assist the court in resolving the ultimate
issue of “whether the officers’ actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and
circumstances confronting them.” Id. The factors that we establish and apply today are, like the
Graham factors, non-exhaustive, Livermore ex rel Rohm v. Lubelan, 476 F.3d 397, 404 (6th Cir.
2007), and not necessarily dispositive in every case. Nonetheless, these additional
considerations aid the ultimate inquiry of “whether the totality of the circumstances justified a
particular sort of . . . seizure,” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8–9, (1985), and should be
considered and ruled upon by the court for claims of excessive force arising in this context.

-- 8 of 13 --

No. 16-1818 Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle Page 9
Applying the above factors to the present case, we conclude that, based on the facts as
viewed in the light most favorable to Hill, Miracle did not use excessive force against Hill when
Miracle deployed his taser in drive-stun mode. As to the first factor, Hill was experiencing a
medical emergency and was incapable of making a rational decision due to his hypoglycemic
episode. In resisting the paramedics’ attempts to save his life, Hill repeatedly kicked his feet and
swung his fists in their direction. The paramedics were therefore put in immediate physical
danger by Hill’s combative actions. In addition, the testimony from Streeter indicates that both
the paramedics and Miracle were at risk due to the blood spraying from Hill’s arm. Streeter
stated that “[i]f the blood was to spray anybody in the face, get in the mouth, the eye, at this
point we don’t know the patient, we don’t know the history. If the patient had hepatitis C, HIV,
there is [sic] a number of things that pose a threat to EMS personnel and the Deputy.”
And even if we were to assume that the safety risk from Hill’s blood did not justify
Miracle’s use of a taser, Hill’s mental state and combative actions posed an immediate threat to
himself. Hill’s extremely low blood-sugar level was in the hypoglycemic range and, if left
untreated, would likely have led to a prolonged seizure and death. Like in Caie, therefore, Hill’s
mental and physical state rendered him “at a minimum, . . . a threat to his own safety.” See Caie,
485 F. App’x at 95.
Turning to the second factor, some degree of force was reasonably necessary to
ameliorate the immediate threat to the paramedics and to Hill. Because of his hypoglycemic
episode, Hill was violently resisting the paramedics’ attempts to render him life-saving
assistance. The four paramedics were unable to gain physical control over Hill, who had already
ripped an IV catheter out of his arm. Hill argues, and the district court agreed, that “any danger
could have been eliminated by simply stepping away from [Hill].” See Estate of Corey Hill,
2016 WL 3136066, at *5. This proposed action, however, fails to take into account the fact that
Hill needed immediate medical assistance. So stepping away from Hill might have eliminated
the safety risk to the paramedics and to Miracle, but it would have had potentially fatal
consequences for Hill. Under these circumstances, we conclude that some degree of force on the
part of Miracle was reasonably necessary to protect the paramedics and, more importantly, to
save Hill’s life.

-- 9 of 13 --

No. 16-1818 Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle Page 10
We turn now to the final factor—whether or not Miracle’s single use of a taser in drive-
stun mode was excessive under the circumstances. Hill first argues that Miracle should have
tried to handcuff or restrain Hill before deploying the taser, and that failing to do so was violative
of Hill’s Fourth Amendment rights. In support of this argument, Hill points out that the officers
in Caie attempted to handcuff Caie and encountered resistance before tasing him. But in the
present situation where four paramedics were unable to restrain Hill, we are hard-pressed to fault
Miracle for not joining the fray.
Hill also argues that the use of a taser in drive-stun mode is “not recommended” and
therefore excessive. He fails to acknowledge, however, that this mode is discouraged because of
the difficulty in keeping the taser in contact with a person’s skin, not because such use
constitutes excessive force. Miracle in fact testified that he used his taser in drive-stun mode
because this was the best option to “minimize [the] damage” in light of Hill’s medical
emergency.
We are not holding that a law-enforcement officer is always justified in using a taser to
gain control over a person suffering from a medical emergency. But under the circumstances,
Miracle’s use of force was objectively reasonable. Four paramedics were unable to physically
restrain Hill, whose health was rapidly deteriorating and who was unresponsive to Miracle’s
command to “relax.” We conclude that a reasonable officer on the scene, without “the 20/20
vision of hindsight,” would be justified in taking the same actions as Miracle. See Graham,
490 U.S. at 396.
This court in Caie reached a similar conclusion, holding that using a taser in drive-stun
mode was not violative of Caie’s constitutional rights when it “served the purpose of gaining
control over a highly intoxicated, volatile, and uncooperative subject and neutralizing what a
reasonable officer could perceive as a dangerous situation.” Caie, 485 F. App’x at 97. Miracle
was also faced with a dangerous situation and his actions could similarly be viewed as
“objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting [him].” See Graham,
490 U.S. at 397 (internal quotation marks omitted). No reasonable jury could find otherwise
based on the facts as viewed in the light most favorable to Hill. Miracle is therefore entitled to
qualified immunity on Hill’s § 1983 claim of excessive force.

-- 10 of 13 --

No. 16-1818 Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle Page 11
2. Hill’s Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established.
Our holding that Miracle did not violate Hill’s Fourth Amendment rights leaves no doubt
that Hill’s § 1983 excessive-force claim also fails to show that the alleged right was clearly
established. In order for a right to be clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity,
“[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand
that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987).
This inquiry must be undertaken “in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad
general proposition.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). That is, “[t]he relevant,
dispositive inquiry . . . is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was
unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id. at 202.
At the time of the alleged violation, no reasonable officer would have known that using a
taser on an individual who was undergoing a medical emergency, posed a risk to the responders’
safety, and needed to be subdued in order for medical personnel to render life-saving assistance
violated that person’s constitutional rights. In other words, Hill has not pointed us to any
caselaw that demonstrates a “prior articulation of a prohibition” against the type of force exerted
against him. See Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893, 902 (6th Cir. 2004) (“To
demonstrate that the Officers unreasonably violated a clearly established right, the Plaintiffs
must therefore show the prior articulation of a prohibition against the type of excess force
exerted here.”).
A review of qualified-immunity cases dealing with excessive force in the context of taser
use shows that this area is one in which “the result depends very much on the facts of each case.”
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 201 (2004). Because no caselaw “squarely governs the case
here,” see id., Miracle’s actions in June 2013 do not support a finding of excessive force. So
Miracle would be entitled to qualified immunity under either prong of the test set forth in Kent v.
Oakland County, 810 F.3d 384, 390 (6th Cir. 2016).
C. Miracle’s governmental-immunity defense
The other issue on appeal concerns the district court’s holding with respect to Hill’s state-
law claim for assault and battery. Under Michigan law, “[a]n assault is defined as any

-- 11 of 13 --

No. 16-1818 Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle Page 12
intentional unlawful offer of corporal injury to another person by force, or force unlawfully
directed toward the person of another, under circumstances which create a well-founded
apprehension of imminent contact, coupled with the apparent present ability to accomplish the
contact.” Espinoza v. Thomas, 472 N.W.2d 16, 21 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “A battery is the
willful and harmful or offensive touching of another person which results from an act intended to
cause such a contact.” Id. Miracle argues that the court erred in concluding that he was not
entitled to governmental immunity with respect to Hill’s assault-and-battery claim.
As metaphorically noted above, the district court failed to see the forest for the trees in
the qualified-immunity context. In the governmental-immunity context under Michigan law, the
court failed to even see the trees. We say this because the court applied the wrong standard in
assessing Miracle’s governmental-immunity defense. It applied the standard set forth in Brewer
v. Perrin, 349 N.W.2d 198, 202 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984), stating that “a governmental officer’s
actions that would normally constitute intentional torts are shielded from liability if those actions
are justified because they were objectively reasonable under the circumstances.” Estate of Corey
Hill, 2016 WL 3136066, at *6. But the Michigan Supreme Court repudiated this standard in
Odom v. Wayne County, 760 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. 2008). In Odom, the Court noted that the area
of law dealing with governmental immunity had “fallen into disarray” and sought to clarify the
contours of the defense for intentional-tort claims. Id. at 220.
The Michigan Supreme Court in Odom held that a defendant did not need to show that
his actions were “justified” or “objectively reasonable under the circumstances” in order to
qualify for governmental immunity. Id. at 220, 229. Instead, an officer who commits an
intentional tort is entitled to governmental immunity if he shows that “(a) the acts were
undertaken during the course of employment and the employee was acting, or reasonably
believed that he was acting, within the scope of his authority, (b) the acts were undertaken in
good faith, or were not undertaken with malice, and (c) the acts were discretionary, as opposed to
ministerial.” Id. at 228.
We can again understand how the district court might have been led astray by a number
of cases decided after Odom, particularly arising out of the federal district courts in Michigan,
that continue to cite and apply the standard for governmental immunity articulated in Brewer.

-- 12 of 13 --

No. 16-1818 Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle Page 13
See, e.g., Parchman v. Taylor, No. 12-CV-13094, 2015 WL 265069, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Jan 21,
2015). Unfortunately, neither party was helpful in pointing the court to Odom and instead just
discussed Brewer. But both sides conceded at oral argument before us (in response to our
pointed inquiry) that Odom is the controlling authority.
Under these circumstances, we would ordinarily remand the case for the district court to
reconsider the governmental-immunity defense under the proper standard. See Pullman-
Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291 (1982) (holding that “[w]hen an appellate court discerns
that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the
usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to
make the missing findings”). But such a remand would be a waste of judicial resources in the
present case. For the same reasons set forth above in the context of Miracle’s qualified-
immunity defense, we conclude that no reasonable jury would find that he acted in bad faith,
much less that malice was a factor. See id. at 292 (holding that, even where the district court’s
“findings are infirm because of an erroneous view of the law,” a remand is unnecessary if “the
record permits only one resolution of the factual issue”).
The record here reflects that Miracle acted in an objectively reasonable manner with the
minimum force necessary to bring Hill under control, and his actions enabled the paramedics to
save Hill’s life. Miracle is therefore entitled to governmental immunity on Hill’s state-law claim
of assault and battery.
III. CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court
and REMAND the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

-- 13 of 13 --