Ted Acord v. Chad Stilley

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0281n.06 Case No. 24-3444 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jun 06, 2025 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk RITA KEITH, as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: 24-51017 Document: 28-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-51017 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 3, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce Rudy Castaneda, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Planet Fitness, Incorporated; John Hensley, Area Director; Uriel LNU, Unit Manager; John Doe, Clerk, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:24-CV-509 ______________________________ Before Davis, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Plaintiff-Appellant Rudy Castaneda, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Planet Fitness, Inc. and several of its employees for refusing him access to their gym(s) and for terminating his membership. His suit arises under several civil-rights statutes and seeks damages and unspecified injunctive relief. The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge, _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.  Case: 24-51017 Document: 28-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2025 No. 24-51017 who recommended the case be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The district judge accepted the recommendation and dismissed the case. After careful review of the record, we agree with the district court and AFFIRM its judgment. Castaneda alleges he was denied access to Planet Fitness after he tried to workout in socks and sandals, rather than athletic shoes, to accommodate his diabetic peripheral neuropathy. He concedes he argued with the Planet Fitness clerk who advised him of the athletic-shoe policy, and that he threatened the clerk with a water bottle. In Castaneda’s words, he “motioned his water bottle towards the Clerk and made an empty threat with his bottle . . . as an intimidation.” We address his claims seriatim. First, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 addresses employment discrimination. Castaneda has not alleged an employment relationship with Planet Fitness or its employees, so he fails to state a viable Title VII claim. Second, the due-process provisions of the Texas and U.S. Constitutions generally govern state actors, not private ones like Planet Fitness and its employees. 1 Castaneda hasn’t alleged any state action or facts suggesting an exception to this general rule. Third, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) require proof of a race-based conspiracy. 2 Castaneda offers no allegation about race, aside from mentioning two disabled “Anglo” gym members. We note the magistrate judge gave Castaneda an opportunity to make a more definite statement on _____________________ 1 See Manhattan Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802, 808–810 (2019) (discussing state-action doctrine); Republican Party of Tex. v. Dietz, 940 S.W.2d 86, 90 (Tex. 1997) (holding Texas’s Constitution regulates state conduct). 2 Bryan v. City Madison, 213 F.3d 267, 276 (5th Cir. 2000). 2  Case: 24-51017 Document: 28-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/03/2025 No. 24-51017 this claim, but he merely reiterated his prior allegations in response. He has not delineated an actionable race-based conspiracy under § 1985(3). Finally, Castaneda’s claim under the ADA’s Title III fails for two reasons. For one, Castaneda’s allegations suggest his membership was terminated because he physically threatened, or was perceived to have threatened, a Planet Fitness clerk, negating any connection between his disability and the revocation of his gym membership. Second, Castaneda initially sought only monetary relief, which is unavailable under Title III of the ADA. 3 When he was permitted to make a more definite statement, Castaneda responded he wanted injunctive relief “so that others do not come across equal distress.” He doesn’t explain what action