Bilyard v. Pierce

1

KEITH BILYARD, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. DEONDRE PIERCE, ET AL., Defendants.

No. 3:21-CV-00845 (SVN)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

February 13, 2024

RULING AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Sarala V. Nagala, United States District Judge.

Plaintiffs Keith Bilyard and Jane Bilyard have brought this action alleging that Defendants, Southbury Police Officers Deondre Pierce, Brianna Critelli, Elizabeth Alfano, and Whitney Carter,^[1]violated their Fourth Amendment rights by using unreasonable force against them while executing a wellness check on Keith Bilyard at their home. Mr. Bilyard brings claims for excessive force and failure to intervene against Officer Pierce, and Mrs. Bilyard brings claims for excessive force and failure to intervene against Officers Critelli, Alfano, and Carter.^[2]

Defendants seek summary judgment on all claims, contending primarily that, based on the undisputed material facts, the force used was not excessive under the Fourth Amendment.

Defendants also argue that, even if Plaintiffs' constitutional rights were violated, they are entitled to a finding of qualified immunity, as their actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Plaintiffs counter that there are material facts in dispute which preclude summary judgment.

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part, as to the failure to intervene claim against Officer Pierce, and otherwise DENIED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND^[3]

On the morning of October 11, 2019, Mr. Bilyard had an appointment with clinical psychologist Dr. Catherine Schmidt at the Yale New Haven Health Center, to whom he had been referred by his primary care physician. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 St. ¶¶ 1, 2. The parties dispute exactly what Mr Bilyard said during that appointment, but Dr. Schmidt's notes from that appointment state that she understood him to have “made a vague statement about not being alive in 2 weeks,” that caused her concern, despite not knowing whether he suffered from suicidal ideations. See Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. D, ECF No 34-1^[4] at 2. After a few unsuccessful attempts to reach Mr. Bilyard, Dr. Schmidt called Jane, Mr. Bilyard's wife, to express her concerns. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 St. ¶¶ 5, 6.

The parties dispute what happened next, but the record makes clear that at some point Dr. Schmidt called a Medical Crisis Team (“MCT”), who went to check on Mr. Bilyard at the Bilyards' home, but did not enter or make contact with him. Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. G, ECF No. 34 3 at 2.

The MCT called the on-call line at Yale to notify the hospital it did not complete the check, id.; see also Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. B, ECF No. 34 at 62, at which point Dr. Katherine McKenzie, the on-call physician, called the Southbury Police Department and requested they perform a wellness check. ECF No. 34 at 62; see also Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. E, ECF No. 34-2 (audio recording of call).^[5]Officers Pierce and Alfano were then dispatched to Plaintiffs' residence. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 St. ¶ 13. While en route, they were advised that the MCT was on the way as well, having again been contacted by the hospital. Id. ¶ 14.

Around this time, Mr. Bilyard was inside his home and did not investigate an outdoor alarm that went off because he assumed it was his wife arriving at the home. Id. ¶ 17. Instead, he went upstairs, and did not answer the door when the officers knocked for three minutes. Id. ¶¶ 17-19. Mrs. Bilyard then arrived home and, after the officers advised her of the comments Mr. Bilyard had made to the doctor, she went into the house to speak to Mr. Bilyard. Id. ¶¶ 20-22. She advised Mr. Bilyard that officers were at the house and wanted to speak with him, but Mr. Bilyard asked her to go back down and tell the officers he did not need to speak with them.^[6] Id. ¶¶ 23-24. Officers Pierce and Alfano then entered the residence. Id. ¶ 25.

Mr. Bilyard was on the landing at the top of the stairs, and Officer Pierce ordered Mr. Bilyard to come downstairs. Id. ¶ 26. Mr. Bilyard remained upstairs and did not comply with Officer Pierce's orders. Id.^[7]

At some point around this time, the MCT arrived. Id. ¶ 27. The parties dispute what the MCT heard and saw going on in the house when they arrived, but it is undisputed that they waited outside while the interaction with the officers continued. Id. ¶ 31.

Thereafter, the CSP Sergeant arrived at the bottom of the staircase. Id. ¶ 32. Officer Pierce yielded to him, and he advanced up the staircase with his Taser pointed at Mr. Bilyard. Id. ¶ 3334. As the CSP Sergeant advanced, Mr. Bilyard said that he would defend himself.^[8]Id. ¶ 36. Mr. Bilyard then, at least briefly, picked up what he describes as a letter opener from the desk near him at the top of the stairs, K. Bilyard Dep. Tr. at 107:10, and what Officer Pierce's police report describes as a “large knife,” Defs.' Mot. for Summary Judgment, Ex. F, ECF No. 32-8 at 3. Mr. Bilyard testified that he “picked it up” but could not hold it due to a preexisting medical issue with his hands. K. Bilyard Dep. Tr. at 107:10-16. At some point, the CSP Sergeant holstered his Taser and unholstered his firearm, which he pointed at Mr. Bilyard. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 St. ¶ 37. Mr. Bilyard testified in his deposition that he put down the letter opener/knife before the CSP Sergeant switched from his Taser to his firearm, K. Bilyard Dep. Tr. at 107:10-108:1, though the police report written by Officer Pierce states that Mr. Bilyard dropped the object after the CSP Sergeant pointed his firearm at Mr. Bilyard and ordered him to drop it, ECF No. 32-8 at 3. It is undisputed that Mr. Bilyard, at some point, put down the letter opener/knife.

According to Officer Pierce's police report, after Mr. Bilyard put down the knife, he “became more cooperative,” see id., and the CSP Sergeant and Officer Pierce then took Mr. Bilyard to the ground and handcuffed him. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 St. ¶ 38. Mr. Bilyard testified that both officers picked him up like he was a “rag doll” and “body slammed” him to the floor. K. Bilyard Dep. Tr. at 115:21-22, 117:5-6. He further testified that the wind was knocked out of him and he could not breathe, that he felt an officer's knees causing pain to his lower back, and that he was experiencing shoulder pain. Id. at 117:12-22, 120:21-121:8, 121:9-10. Mr. Bilyard was led outside while in handcuffs, and eventually placed in the back of an ambulance and taken to the hospital. Defs.' L.R. 56(a)1 St. ¶¶ 40-41.

At some point while Mr. Bilyard was engaged with Officer Pierce and the CSP Sergeant, Mrs. Bilyard also was handcuffed. Id. ¶ 39. Defendants contend that she was interfering with Defendants' and MCT's attempts to engage with Mr. Bilyard, including by blocking the stairway. Id. ¶¶ 28, 39. Two emergency medical technicians (“EMTs”) who were present on site testified that Mrs. Bilyard was handcuffed when she was “trying to get to the bottom of the stairs,” see Defs.' Mot. for Summary Judgment, Ex. J, B. Cieply Dep. Tr., ECF No. 32-12, at 34:6-8; id., Ex. K, F. Vanormer Dep. Tr., ECF No. 32-13, at 29:4-8; and one noted that after being handcuffed, she sat on the couch. F. Vanormer Dep. Tr. at 28:15-20. Mrs. Bilyard testified in her deposition that she “screamed” after she heard officers take her husband down to the ground upstairs, J. Bilyard Dep. Tr., ECF No. 41-1, at 57:4-13, and then Officers Alfano and Critelli lifted her up, slammed her into the floor in front of her couch, pushed her face into the cushion, and handcuffed her, id. at 60:25-61:5. She further testified that she was yelling in pain, and in response Officer Critelli twisted her arm further and whispered in her ear: “This is your home, but you are not the boss. You don't belong here. I hate your kind.” Id. at 62:21-63:6. Mrs. Bilyard also contends that, while Officers Alfano and Critelli were handcuffing her, Officer Carter stood on the back of Mrs. Bilyard's legs, see Defs.' Mot. for Summary Judgment, Ex. I, ECF No. 32-11, at 37 ¶ 127. Mrs. Bilyard was also taken outside, and her handcuffs were eventually removed. J. Bilyard Dep. Tr. at 69.

Neither Mr. Bilyard nor Mrs. Bilyard were ever placed under arrest.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Summary Judgment

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides, in relevant part, that a court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” A disputed fact is material only where the determination of the fact might affect the outcome of the lawsuit. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). With respect to genuineness, “summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,' that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.

In moving for summary judgment against a party who will bear the ultimate burden of proof at trial, the movant's burden of establishing there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute will be satisfied if the movant can point to an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the non-moving party's claim. Celotex Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The movant bears an initial burden of “informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 323. A movant, however, “need not prove a negative when it moves for summary judgment on an issue that the [non-movant] must prove at trial. It need only point to an absence of...