Montaz Lee Kennedy v. India Smith

── Montaz Lee Kennedy v. India Smith ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General File Name: 26a0180n.06 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Case No. 25-1880 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Apr 20, 2026 ) MONTAZ LEE KENNEDY, KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN INDIA SMITH, ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Defendant-Appellant. ) ) OPINION Before: KETHLEDGE, NALBANDIAN, and RITZ, Circuit Judges. NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Montaz Kennedy brought a First Amendment retaliation claim against police officer India Smith arising from threats that Smith allegedly made toward Kennedy. The district court denied qualified immunity to Smith on summary judgment. And Smith now appeals. But we don’t need to reach the merits of Smith’s qualified-immunity defense. That’s because the district court didn’t abuse its discretion in concluding that Smith forfeited the defense by making a perfunctory argument. So we dismiss Smith’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. I. Montaz Kennedy’s claim arises from an encounter with India Smith, a Highland Park, Michigan police officer, at a homeless shelter where Kennedy lived. After questioning another resident of the shelter about a robbery, Smith overheard Kennedy calling one of her questions “dumb.” R.50-1, Kennedy Dep., PageID 471. Kennedy also told the resident to get Smith’s name and badge number. Smith allegedly retaliated against Kennedy by threatening to arrest him and No. 25-1880, Kennedy v. Smith telling the shelter’s director that Kennedy was interfering with a criminal investigation, jeopardizing Kennedy’s ability to live there. Proceeding pro se, Kennedy brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim against Smith. Smith moved for summary judgment, “arguing” that qualified immunity barred relief and that Kennedy couldn’t establish the “adverse action” element of his retaliation claim. In Smith’s brief, after spending about one-and-a-half pages reciting the legal standard for qualified immunity, her application of that standard to this case was this: At all times, Officer Smith was acting in a lawful and/or immune fashion. Plaintiff has failed to establish an unlawful act committed by Officer Smith nor her understanding of a violation of said unlawful act. R.50, Smith’s Mot. for Summ. J., PageID 456. The remaining two pages of the brief addressed Kennedy’s failure to establish an adverse action. A magistrate judge recommended denial of summary judgment. The magistrate judge found that Smith had forfeited qualified immunity because her two-sentence argument was undeveloped and conclusory. And, in the alternative, the defense failed on the merits. The magistrate judge also found that Kennedy had raised a question of material fact as to the “adverse action” element. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation over Smith’s objections. So Smith filed this interlocutory appeal, limiting the appeal to “whether the District Court mistakenly held that Defendant’s actions violated c