Rita Keith v. James Griffiths
Court
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 6, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Practice Areas
Case Summary
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0281n.06 Case No. 24-3444 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jun 06, 2025 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk RITA KEITH, as Administrator of the Estate of ) Arthur Keith, deceased, and Individually as the ) Natural Parent of Arthur Keith, deceased, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE Plaintiff-Appellant, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE NORTHERN v. ) DISTRICT OF OHIO ) JAMES GRIFFITHS, in his individual and ) Capacity as an Employee of the Cuyahoga ) Metropolitan Housing Authority, ) OPINION Defendant-Appellee. ) ) Before: COLE, WHITE, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges. COLE, Circuit Judge. On November 13, 2020, officer James Griffiths fatally shot Arthur Keith. Rita Keith—Keith’s mother and the administrator of his estate—sued Griffiths, asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of Keith’s Fourth Amendment rights and various state-law claims.1 Griffiths moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted his motion, finding that Griffiths was entitled to qualified and statutory immunity. Plaintiff challenges the district court’s decision. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. On November 12, 2020, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority Police Department (CMHA PD) received a phone call reporting that a black van with tinted windows allegedly 1 Rita Keith is the administrator of Arthur Keith’s estate. For clarity, we refer to Rita Keith as “plaintiff” and refer to Arthur Keith as “Keith.” No. 24-3444, Keith v. Griffiths involved with a shooting incident earlier that week was parked in a parking lot near a Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority property. Officers responded but did not find the van. The following day, CMHA PD received a second call reporting the same van in the same parking lot. Three CMHA PD officers—Griffiths, Robert Lenz, and Paul Styles—responded. Griffiths proceeded to the passenger’s side of the van, while Styles went to the driver’s side. From the officers’ perspective, the following occurred. Griffiths opened the van’s front passenger door, saw Keith in the backseat, announced it was the police, and instructed Keith: “Let me see your hands.” (Griffiths Dep., R. 69-1, PageID 3066–69.) Keith exited the vehicle on the passenger’s side, sliding the van door open and stepping out. Griffiths observed Keith holding a gun in his left hand “against his stomach, not pointing down, pointing straight across” while attempting to open the van’s door with his right hand. (Id. at PageID 3074.) He ordered Keith to drop the gun. When Keith did not comply, Griffiths drew his gun. Keith “ma[de] three to four steps” away from Griffiths and towards the sidewalk. (Id. at PageID 3083–84.) Then, Keith “turned and raised his left hand up at [Griffiths] as if he was going to shoot.” (Id. at PageID 3083.) Griffiths fired multiple shots—one of which hit Keith in his “left upper back” and exited through his “right chest.” (Armstrong Dep., R. 66-1, PageID 1136, 1140.) Keith fled on foot. Styles and Griffiths pursued for a short distance, until Keith fell to the ground. Styles was the first to reach Keith and observed a gun on the ground near Keith’s right hand. When Griffiths arrived, he also saw the gun next to Keith. Lenz arrived last and administered aid to Keith. Lenz did not see the gun on the ground, but he observed Griffiths holding it. Griffiths claimed he secured the gun because residents of the housing complex began to arrive on the scene. Once commanding officers responded, they secured the weapon in the trunk -2- No. 24-3444, Keith v. Griffiths of a police cruiser
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0281n.06
Case No. 24-3444
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
Jun 06, 2025
) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk
RITA KEITH, as Administrator of the Estate of ) Arthur Keith, deceased, and Individually as the ) Natural Parent of Arthur Keith, deceased, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE Plaintiff-Appellant, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE NORTHERN v. ) DISTRICT OF OHIO ) JAMES GRIFFITHS, in his individual and ) Capacity as an Employee of the Cuyahoga ) Metropolitan Housing Authority, ) OPINION Defendant-Appellee. ) )
Before: COLE, WHITE, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
COLE, Circuit Judge. On November 13, 2020, officer James Griffiths fatally shot Arthur
Keith. Rita Keith—Keith’s mother and the administrator of his estate—sued Griffiths, asserting a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of Keith’s Fourth Amendment rights and various
state-law claims.1 Griffiths moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted his
motion, finding that Griffiths was entitled to qualified and statutory immunity. Plaintiff challenges
the district court’s decision. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I.
On November 12, 2020, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority Police Department
(CMHA PD) received a phone call reporting that a black van with tinted windows allegedly
1 Rita Keith is the administrator of Arthur Keith’s estate. For clarity, we refer to Rita Keith as “plaintiff” and refer to Arthur Keith as “Keith.” No. 24-3444, Keith v. Griffiths
involved with a shooting incident earlier that week was parked in a parking lot near a Cuyahoga
Metropolitan Housing Authority property. Officers responded but did not find the van.
The following day, CMHA PD received a second call reporting the same van in the same
parking lot. Three CMHA PD officers—Griffiths, Robert Lenz, and Paul Styles—responded.
Griffiths proceeded to the passenger’s side of the van, while Styles went to the driver’s side.
From the officers’ perspective, the following occurred. Griffiths opened the van’s front
passenger door, saw Keith in the backseat, announced it was the police, and instructed Keith: “Let
me see your hands.” (Griffiths Dep., R. 69-1, PageID 3066–69.) Keith exited the vehicle on the
passenger’s side, sliding the van door open and stepping out. Griffiths observed Keith holding a
gun in his left hand “against his stomach, not pointing down, pointing straight across” while
attempting to open the van’s door with his right hand. (Id. at PageID 3074.) He ordered Keith to
drop the gun. When Keith did not comply, Griffiths drew his gun. Keith “ma[de] three to four
steps” away from Griffiths and towards the sidewalk. (Id. at PageID 3083–84.) Then, Keith
“turned and raised his left hand up at [Griffiths] as if he was going to shoot.” (Id. at PageID 3083.)
Griffiths fired multiple shots—one of which hit Keith in his “left upper back” and exited through
his “right chest.” (Armstrong Dep., R. 66-1, PageID 1136, 1140.)
Keith fled on foot. Styles and Griffiths pursued for a short distance, until Keith fell to the
ground. Styles was the first to reach Keith and observed a gun on the ground near Keith’s right
hand. When Griffiths arrived, he also saw the gun next to Keith. Lenz arrived last and
administered aid to Keith. Lenz did not see the gun on the ground, but he observed Griffiths
holding it.
Griffiths claimed he secured the gun because residents of the housing complex began to
arrive on the scene. Once commanding officers responded, they secured the weapon in the trunk
-2-
No. 24-3444, Keith v. Griffiths
of a police cruiser
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 6, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools