A short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
In Wenzel v. Federspiel, No. 24-1278 (June 20, 2025), the Sheriff was accused of keeping “fourteen firearms seized in a criminal investigation that ended years ago.” Slip op. at 1. Eventually, the claimed owners of those guns sued, inter alia, for a taking. You got no proof that these guns belong to you, replied the Sheriff.
The plaintiffs “do not have any documents proving their ownership,” slip op. at 2, so in support of their motion for summary judgment, they submitted declarations that they owned the guns. We’re not sure whether the Sheriff responded with any evidence of his own. But in the end, the district court granted the Sheriff summary judgment because the plaintiffs “had not established constitutional violations.” Slip op. at 3.
After first concluding that the Sheriff in his personal capacity was entitled to qualified immunity (because individual liability for takings is not “clearly established”), the Sixth Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment and concluded the Sheriff could be liable for a taking in his official capacity if the plaintiffs prove they owned “private property” (the guns):
For Novak and Wenzel to obtain summary judgment on their takings claims, they must establish ownership of the subject firearms at the time of the taking. See CHKRS, LLC, 984 F.3d at 492. And conversely, Federspiel would need to establish the opposite, as a matter of law, to obtain summary judgment on the ground that they did not own the firearms. See id. Here, Novak and Wenzel have submitted affidavits stating that they own the firearms in question. These affidavits create a genuine issue of material fact as to the ownership of the firearms. But the affidavits do not put that fact beyond dispute, and Novak’s and Wenzel’s credibility is for a factfinder to evaluate. See, e.g., Davis v. Gallagher, 951 F.3d 743, 750 (6th Cir. 2020). Novak and Wenzel otherwise lack evidence that establishes their ownership of the firearms as a matter of law.
We thus vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Federspiel on the official-capacity takings claims and the claims for injunctive relief. On remand, we see no reason why the parties would be precluded from pursuing discovery related to those claims.
Slip op. at 5-6.
A question on Rule 56 procedure. It is unclear from the opinion whether, in response to the plaintiffs’ declarations that the guns are theirs, the Sheriff submitted anything to show that the guns were not. Or did the Sheriff just rely on the burden of proof (plaintiffs must establish they own private property, and for that they need documentary evidence, and can’t simply assert they own the guns)? We thought that one a plaintiff meets its burden of production on an essential element of a claim, the burden shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to come up with something that merits a trial. Is a credibility challenge enough?
And on remand, will the Sheriff claim that the plaintiffs could have obtained proof they owned the guns by seeking return of the guns under Michigan forfeiture laws? What do our summary judgment mavens say here?
Wenzel v. Federspiel, No. 24-1278 (6th Cir. June 20, 2025)