Benton v. City of Cleveland

JAYVON BENTON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-2159

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

March 13, 2020

MAGISTRATE JUDGE THOMAS M. PARKER

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Jayvon Benton claims that defendants violated his constitutional rights by seizing him from the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Justice Detention Center ("CCJJDC") without a warrant or an order from the juvenile court and interrogating him without advising him of his Miranda rights and outside the presence of his mother and attorney. Benton filed this case to recover damages as a result.¹ The facts of this case are troubling. Thomas Shoulders, a sergeant with the Cleveland Police Department, removed Benton from the Cuyahoga County Justice Juvenile Detention Center ("CCJJDC") in violation of CCJJDC's policies and for the purpose of investigating another crime. The Ohio Juvenile Court found that Shoulders violated Benton's constitutional rights and excluded the evidence that Shoulders obtained as a result of the removal and subsequent interrogation. As a result, the charges against Benton were dismissed. Benton, having now reached the age of 18, filed this lawsuit against Shoulders and others for the allegedseizure and interrogation that took place in September 2015. Benton points to the juvenile court determination that his rights were violated. This court must decide anew whether Shoulders' actions violated Benton's constitutional rights because this court is not bound by the juvenile court's ruling. Unfortunately for Benton, after taking a fresh look at the question of whether the defendants violated his constitutional rights, the answer to that question is no.

Because Benton has failed to show that there are genuine issues of fact as to whether his constitutional rights were violated by Shoulders' conduct, all of the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Benton's §1983 claims against them. Even after construing Benton's allegations in a light most favorable to him, the court must GRANT the motions for summary judgment filed by the City of Cleveland, Calvin Williams and Michael McGrath (ECF Doc. 40); Thomas Shoulders, David Shapiro, Cynthia Moore and John Lally (ECF Doc. 43); and David Lam (ECF Doc. 42).

II. Finding of Facts

The court finds the following facts to be undisputed from the Rule 56 evidence. On August 28, 2015, Benton was arrested by the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority ("CMHA") in relation to a stolen vehicle. ECF Doc. 41-4 at 1. Because Benton was a minor, he was transported to the CCJJDC. Id. On August 31, 2015, case number DL151111991 was filed in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court, charging Benton with receiving stolen property and obstructing official business. ECF Doc. 41-3 at 3. The Cuyahoga County Public Defender's Office, Juvenile Division, was appointed by the juvenile court to represent Benton. ECF Doc. 41-4 at 2. Benton was arraigned in the juvenile court on August 31, 2015 and remanded to the CCJJDC. Id.

Defendants Shoulders, Shapiro, Lam, Moore and Lally are all employees of the Cleveland, Ohio Police Department. ECF Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 19-23. Sergeant Shoulders was assigned to investigate a stolen vehicle and learned that Benton had been arrested by CMHA in relation to the vehicle. ECF Doc. 41-4 at 2. Shoulders contacted the CCJJDC four times to remove Benton for processing; the first three attempts were unsuccessful. Id. On September 1, 2015, Shoulders successfully removed Benton from the CCJJDC without a warrant or an order from the juvenile court. Id. Shoulders placed Benton in the back of a police car and transported him to the Cuyahoga County Justice Center. ECF Doc. 41-4 at 2-3. Despite being told not to do so, Shoulders talked to Benton while transporting him to the Justice Center. ECF Doc. 41-4 at 2-3. According to Shoulders, while Benton was at the Justice Center, he told Shoulders that he wanted to "tell his side of the story. ECF Doc. 41-6 at 50.

After processing Benton at the Justice Center, Shoulders transported Benton to the Second District Police Station. ECF Doc. 41-4 at 2-3. There, Shoulders, along with defendants, Shapiro, Lam, Moore and Lally, interrogated Benton for approximately three hours. Id. Benton was not permitted to speak with his mother or his attorney during the interrogation. Id. The officers recorded the interrogation but stopped and started the recording several times. ECF Doc. 41-6 at 136. Benton was absent from the CCJJDC for approximately five hours on September 1, 2015. ECF Doc. 41-4 at 3.

On September 20, 2018, after Benton's eighteenth birthday, he filed a complaint against the City of Cleveland, Chief Calvin Williams, Safety Service Director Michael McGrath, Sergeant Thomas Shoulders, Detective David Shapiro, Detective David Lam, Detective Cynthia Moore, Detective John Lally and several John Doe defendants. ECF Doc. 1. Benton asserted six causes of action: 1) a §1983 claim for unlawful seizure against Shoulders; 2) a § 1983 claim forunlawful interrogation and a Miranda rights violation against Shoulders, Shapiro, Lam, Moore and Lally; 3) a § 1983 Monell claim against Cleveland, Williams and McGrath; 4) a false imprisonment claim against Shoulders, Shapiro, Lam, Moore and Lally; 5) a §1983 civil conspiracy claim against Shoulders, Shapiro, Lam, Moore and Lally; and 6) a civil conspiracy claim against Shoulders, Shapiro, Lam, Moore and Lally. ECF Doc. 1.

On January 16, 2019, Benton voluntarily dismissed his Fourth Cause of Action for false imprisonment. ECF Doc. 30. The court later granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings on Benton's Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action. ECF Doc. 33. Thus, the three remaining claims in this case are Benton's Count One § 1983 claim for unlawful seizure against Shoulders; his Count Two §1983 claim for unlawful interrogation and Miranda rights violation against Shoulders, Shapiro, Lam, Moore and Lally; and his Count Three §1983 Monell claim against Cleveland, Williams and McGrath.

III. Standard of Review

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, summary judgment is warranted if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute of fact is "genuine" if "the [record] evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct.2505, 91 L.Ed. 2d 202 (1986). As a result, "'[c]onclusory and unsupported allegations, rooted in speculation' are insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact for trial." Gunn v. Senior Servs of N. Ky., 632 F. App'x 839, 847 (6th Cir. 2015), citing Bell v. Ohio St. Univ., 351 F.3d 240, 253 (6th Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (e)(2). As the Supreme Court has explained, "[the non-moving party] must do more than simply show that there is metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec.,Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-86, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). As for the materiality requirement, a dispute of fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. "Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted." Id.

In determining whether genuine issues of material fact exist, the court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. In addition, "[the moving party] bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the [record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact." Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), (e). However, when the moving party has met this initial burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing a genuine dispute of material fact for trial. Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c), (e).

IV. Arguments Presented

We begin with a brief summary of the parties' main arguments. Defendants Williams and McGrath argue that they must be dismissed because Benton has only sued them in their official capacities. ECF Doc. 40 at 11. These defendants also argue that the John Doe defendants must be dismissed because Benton has neither identified nor served them. ECF Doc. 40 at 12.²

Defendants Shapiro, Moore, Lally and Lam argue that the only defendant implicated in Benton's §1983 seizure claim is Shoulders. They argue that they are entitled to summaryjudgment on Benton's seizure claim because they did not seize him or participate in his removal from the CCJJDC.

All defendants argue that Benton has failed to establish that a constitutional violation occurred when he was seized because he was already in custody before Shoulders removed him from the CCJJDC for processing and questioning. ECF Doc. 40 at 12-17. They also contend that he cannot sue for unlawful interrogation³ because the statements he made (allegedly in violation of his Miranda rights) were suppressed and, therefore, not used against him.⁴ ECF Doc. 40 at 17-18. Directly related to their lack of a constitutional violation argument is the officer defendants' argument that they enjoy a qualified immunity from Benton's claims.

Cleveland, Williams and McGrath argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Benton's Monell claim. They argue that there is no evidence that a policy or custom of the city caused any alleged violation of Benton's constitutional rights. ECF Doc. 40 at 18-19. Cleveland's official policies prohibit Shoulders' conduct and there is no evidence that any actions were taken by officials with final decision making authority. They contend that there is no evidence of inadequate...