MICHAEL HOOVER v. JUSTIN DUE - Articles

All Content

MICHAEL HOOVER v. JUSTIN DUE

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Sep 17, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Benjamin K. Lauderback, WATSON, ROACH, BATSON & LAUDERBACK, P.L.C., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Benjamin K. Raybin, RAYBIN & WEISSMAN, P.C., Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Benjamin K. Lauderback, WATSON, ROACH, BATSON & LAUDERBACK, P.L.C., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Benjamin K. Raybin, RAYBIN & WEISSMAN, P.C., Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Judge(s): GIBBONS, WHITE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Cookeville

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Defendant Deputy Justin Due received a 911 dispatch call, reporting a domestic dispute at Plaintiff Michael Hoover’s house. The 911 caller stated that Hoover had threatened her with a gun. When Due arrived at the scene, a woman approached him and said that Hoover had “gone crazy” and “there he is at the door,” referring to Hoover standing in the garage doorway. As Due neared the garage, a second woman walked out into the driveway, recording the event on her phone, while a third woman stood inside the garage, tending to a small child. Due ordered Hoover to show him his hands. Although Hoover raised his hands, Due took out his gun and walked into the garage. When Hoover refused to be handcuffed, Due pushed Hoover back into his house, slammed him against a wall, and punched him in the face. Due continued to shove Hoover until one of the women at the scene told Due that Hoover had never threatened anyone with a gun. Hoover filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Due violated his Fourth Amendment rights when he unlawfully entered his home and used excessive force against him. The district court denied summary judgment to Due on both claims. Due appeals, arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Because a reasonable juror could conclude that Due’s warrantless entry into Hoover’s home was unlawful, and that his use of force to effectuate that entry was unreasonable, we affirm.

Attachments: