A Sixth Circuit panel said a trial court was wrong to use qualified immunity to toss a Michigan prisoner's suit alleging his constitutional rights were violated when corrections officers slammed him to the ground and fractured his foot in two places.

In a split decision Tuesday, the majority said that when determining what happened between inmate Brent James Nash and officers Austin Bryce and Calvin Turner, the lower court improperly relied on a prison misconduct hearing and inconclusive video evidence to grant summary judgment to the officers, finding they had qualified immunity.

When the situation is viewed in Nash's favor, as the court said it's required to do, his case should continue because a reasonable jury could conclude officers weren't acting in good faith and intended to cause harm, the panel said.

The extent of Nash's injuries, and the fact that he was in handcuffs when he was felled, made it "difficult" for the majority to understand why Nash presented enough of a threat "to justify Bryce's and Turner's choice to take him forcefully to the cement, even with deference given to the officers."

The trial court made a mistake, the panel said, by relying on the outcome of a misconduct hearing to determine Nash was resisting. The lower court should have examined whether Nash had a fair chance to state his case there, or even examine the evidence against him, which he clearly did not, the panel said.

The misconduct hearing officer designated most evidence against Nash as "confidential," and Nash wasn't even allowed to view video of the altercation before he was found to be in the wrong, according to the Sixth Circuit.

"It is difficult to imagine how an individual who is denied access to any part of the most crucial evidence has received an adequate opportunity to litigate a dispute," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Rachel S. Bloomekatz for the majority.

The panel said that there were "yet more reasons to think that affording preclusive effect to the misconduct hearing would be inappropriate here. For example, Nash's lack of counsel during the hearing process also points against any notion that he received a full and fair opportunity to litigate the factual dispute."

Additionally, the question the hearing officer was exploring — whether Nash was guilty of assaulting officers — was different from the question the trial court had to address, the majority explained.

Nash was grabbed by the officers after he smashed a lunch tray over a fellow inmate's head, the panel said, noting that there was no doubt he had resisted being grabbed by officers when he was fighting.

"To find Nash guilty of assault of a staff member, the hearing officer needed to determine only that Nash had physically resisted Bryce and Turner at any point between when he attacked another prisoner and when he was ultimately taken to the ground by the officers," Judge Bloomekatz wrote.

However, the trial court was examining what happened after Nash was apprehended and walking down a hallway with the officers, according to the majority.

During these moments, Nash said he was taken down for no reason, while the officers' differing accounts both blamed Nash for necessitating the take-down, the panel said.

When turning to the videotape, the panel called it "impossible to tell" what happened when the three were in the hallway, because they were "entirely obscured by the open hallway door."

"Once we can see Nash in the video, it does appear — as the magistrate judge stated — that his footsteps shuffle slightly. But it is unclear whether Nash is shuffling because he is attempting to pull away from the officers, or rather because the defendants had already begun to move Nash's body as they executed the takedown maneuver," wrote Judge Bloomekatz.

It was not clear whose version of events was true, even when looking at the videotape, according to the majority. A reasonable juror might conclude unreasonable force was used, if taking Nash's version of events as true, the panel said. As a result they had to reverse the lower court's decision and revive the case Nash filed against the officers in 2022.

In his dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Chad A. Readler wrote that the district court was right to grant summary judgment to the officers because precedent required it.

"Factual findings from Michigan's major-misconduct hearings customarily are entitled to preclusive effect in federal court," he wrote.

Because Nash could not show that the only reason the officers took him down was to inflict pain, which Judge Readler said precedent required, "he cannot show the officers violated his constitutional rights."

"Qualified immunity was properly granted to the officers," Judge Readler wrote, explaining he would affirm the lower court's decision "on that basis."

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

U.S. Circuit Judges Ronald Lee Gilman, Rachel S. Bloomekatz and Chad A. Readler sat on the panel for the Sixth Circuit.

Nash is represented by Zachary T. Runyan of Runyan Law Group.

The officers are represented by Christopher Alex and James E. Keathley of the Michigan Attorney General's Office.

The case is Nash v. Bryce et al., case number 24-1263, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

--Editing by Linda Voorhis.