Whether a police officer can be held liable for a due process violation when conducting a single-photo show-up identification procedure and whether qualified immunity protects the officer from such a claim

No question identified. : issue on whether a police officer can be held liable for a due process violation for engaging in a single photo show-up to confirm the identity of someone known to the witness and whether Petitioner Olsen is protected with qualified immunity. The issues are of great importance to law enforcement officers, who are entitled to clear rules to govern their potential liability for conduct involved in during their investigations of crimes. Petitioner requests this extension of time due to the schedule of Petitioner’s counsel of record Mary Massaron. Lead counsel has briefs currently due in the Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan Court of Appeals at the end of July; Michigan Supreme Court Application for Leave to Appeal August 7, 2025; and Sixth Circuit, Michigan Supreme Court, and Michigan Court of Appeals on August 11th, 15th, and 17th. Additionally, the Fourth of July holiday and shortened work week caused delays in finalizing briefs for filing. Consequently, the requested extension is necessary to allow Petitioner’s counsel adequate time to properly prepare the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this matter. Counsel for Respondent has consented to the requested relief. Ii Ii Ii In sum, Petitioner respectfully requests an additional 45 days within which to file his Petition for Writ of Certiorari, making the petition due on or before September 27, 2025. Respectfully submitted, MARY MASSARON PLUNKETT COONEY Attorney for Petitioner July 28, 2025 61043424.1 Case: 22-1656 Document: 55-1 — Filed: 03/21/2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 Kelly L. Stephens POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE Clerk CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 Filed: March 21, 2025 Mr. Mark Granzotto Granzotto Law 2684 Eleven Mile Road, Suite 100 Berkley, MI 48072 Ms. Mary Massaron Plunkett Cooney 38505 Woodward Avenue Suite 100 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Mr. Wolfgang Mueller Mueller Law Firm 41850 W. Eleven Mile Road, Suite 101 Novi, MI 48375 Page: 1 Tel. (513) 564-7000 Re: Case No. 22-1656, Aaron Salter v. City of Detroit, MI, et al Originating Case No. : 4:18-cv-13136 Dear Counsel, The court today announced its decision in the above-styled case. Enclosed is a copy of the court’s published opinion together with the judgment which has been entered in conformity with Rule 36, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Yours very truly, Kelly L. Stephens, Clerk Cathryn Lovely Deputy Clerk (1 of 37) Case: 22-1656 Document: 55-1 — Filed: 03/21/2025 Page: 2 (2 of 37) cc: Ms. Kinikia D. Essix Enclosures Mandate to issue. Case: 22-1656 Document: 55-2 — Filed: 03/21/2025 Page: 1 (3 of 37) RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit |.0.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0066p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AARON SALTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 22-1656 v. City OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, Defendant. DONALD OLSEN, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. A. Roberts, District Judge. Argued: June 13, 2024 Decided and Filed: March 21, 2025 Before: BATCHELDER, NALBANDIAN, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges. COUNSEL ARGUED: Mary Massaron, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellant. Mark Granzotto, MARK GRANZOTTO, P.C., Berkley, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mary Massaron, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellant. Mark Granzotto, MARK GRANZOTTO, P.C., Berkley, Michigan, for Appellee. BLOOMEKATZ, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which NALBANDIAN, J., concurred. NALBANDIAN, J. (pp. 18-23), delivered a separate concurring opinion. BATCHELDER, J. (pp. 24-34), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. Case: 22-1656 Document: 55-2 Filed: 03/21/2025 Page: 2 No. 22-1656 Salter v. City of Detroit, Mich., et al. Page 2 OPINION BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Aaron Salter spent 15 years in prison for a deadly shooting he did not commit. Salter’s conviction rested on a single eyewitness’s testimony identifying hi