James Freels v. County of Tipton, Tennessee, et al, No. 10-5805 (6th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 11a0876n.06 No. 10-5805 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED JAMES FREELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF TIPTON, TENNESSEE; J.T. PANCHO CHUMLEY; GERALD SPENCER; CLARK DUNLAP; BOB BEANBLOSSOM, Defendants-Appellees, and TIPTON COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT, Defendant. BEFORE: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Dec 21, 2011 LEONARD GREEN, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE OPINION BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; COLE and COOK, Circuit Judges. COLE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant James Freels sues Defendant-Appellees County of Tipton, Tennessee; Sheriff J.T. Pancho Chumley; Chief Deputy Clark Dunlap; Deputy Bob Beanblossom; Deputy Gerald Spencer; and Defendant Tipton County Sheriff s Department (collectively, Tipton ). At the district court level, he brought numerous claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional and statutory violations, as well as several state law claims. The district court granted all of Tipton s motions for summary judgment on all federal claims, finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. It declined to exercise jurisdiction over the No. 10-5805 Freels v. County of Tipton, Tennessee, et al. state law claims. On appeal, Freels challenges two of the district court s conclusions: that the defendants did not violate his Fourth Amendment right to an arrest free from excessive force, and that defendants did not violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., by failing to reasonably accommodate his disability during the arrest. On October 12, 2007, Plaintiff-Appellant James Freels went to the Sheriff s Department, housed in the Tipton County Justice Center, to obtain incident reports concerning a recent property dispute with his neighbor. After obtaining the report, Freels proceeded to the clerk s office to initiate a criminal warrant against his neighbor. At the clerk s office, Freels identified himself by name. An employee recognized his name as corresponding to an outstanding arrest warrant for a minor misdemeanor and, pursuant to city policy, summoned the Sheriff s Department. Defendants Chief Deputy Clark Dunlap, Deputy Beanblossom, and Deputy Jay Rodriguez proceeded to the clerk s office, where they placed Freels under arrest, confiscated his cane, and escorted him to the jail, located elsewhere in the building. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Coble v. City of White House, Tenn., 634 F.3d 865, 867 (6th Cir. 2011). Upon hearing oral argument and carefully considering the arguments and record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting Defendants motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We agree with the district court that the officers reasonably accommodated Freels s disability, and consequently we do not decide whether the ADA applies to arrests. On all other issues, we AFFIRM the entry of judgment in favor of defendants for the reasons set forth in the district court s opinion. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
