UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ KAMEL CHANEY-SNELL, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > Nos. 22-1990/1992 │ v. │ │ ANDREW YOUNG (22-1992); ANDREW TEICHOW │ (22-1990), │ Defendants-Appellants. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:20-cv-13064—Nancy G. Edmunds, District Judge.

Argued: October 25, 2023

Decided and Filed: April 15, 2024

Before: WHITE, NALBANDIAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Todd J. Shoudy, FLETCHER FEALKO SHOUDY & FRANCIS, PC, Port Huron, Michigan, for Appellant Young. Kevin J. Campbell, CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, PLC, Livonia, Michigan, for Appellant Teichow. Shawn C. Cabot, CHRISTOPHER TRAINOR & ASSOCIATES, White Lake, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Todd J. Shoudy, FLETCHER FEALKO SHOUDY & FRANCIS, PC, Port Huron, Michigan, for Appellant Young. Kevin J. Campbell, CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, PLC, Livonia, Michigan, for Appellant Teichow. Shawn C. Cabot, CHRISTOPHER TRAINOR & ASSOCIATES, White Lake, Michigan, for Appellee. Nos. 22-1990/1992 Chaney-Snell v. Young, et al. Page 2

_________________

OPINION _________________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Deputy Andrew Young and Officer Andrew Teichow arrested Kamel Chaney-Snell during a search of his girlfriend’s house. Chaney-Snell pleaded guilty to attempting to resist their arrest. But he now claims that, after he peacefully surrendered, Young punched him in the face and one of the officers kneed him in the back and dragged him across the floor. Chaney-Snell sued Young and Teichow under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive- force and failure-to-intervene claims. The district court denied qualified immunity to both officers.

Their appeals raise three questions. Question One: Must we accept Chaney-Snell’s claim that Young gratuitously punched him despite Chaney-Snell’s guilty plea for attempting to resist arrest? Young answers “no” on the ground that Chaney-Snell’s claim conflicts with his conviction. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). At the least, Young argues, judicial estoppel bars Chaney-Snell’s claim because it also conflicts with his admissions at his plea hearing. But we lack jurisdiction over Young’s Heck claim, and his judicial-estoppel claim fails on the merits.

Question Two: Does the Fourth Amendment allow officers to use unnecessary force on arrestees if the force qualifies as “de minimis”? Young and Teichow concede that, under Chaney-Snell’s allegations, one of them gratuitously kneed him in the back and dragged him on the floor. They nevertheless argue that this force falls below the minimum level required for an excessive-force claim. But our cases have long held that gratuitous force violates the Fourth Amendment even if the force is minor and causes no serious injury. And these cases comport with the common-law backdrop against which the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were enacted.

Question Three: Has Chaney-Snell established a “failur