Buttler v. City of Sperry

1

THOMAS RAY BUTTLER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SPERRY, JOHN CARR, Defendants.

No. 4:20-cv-00355-JAR-CDL

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

February 8, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

JANE A. RESTANI, JUDGE ^[*]

This case involves the two-day civil commitment of Thomas Buttler for a mental health evaluation following Officer John Carr's filing of petitions seeking emergency detention and evaluation. Buttler brought this action against the City of Sperry and Officer Carr. Before the court are two motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants. Def. City of Sperry's Mot. Summ. J. & Br., ECF No. 39 (May 14 2021) (“Sperry Br.”); Def. John Carr's Mot Summ. J. & Br., ECF No. 40 (May 14, 2021) (“Carr Br.”).

UNDISPUTED FACTS

The court draws the following undisputed material facts from the record.

Prior to April 24, 2019, Buttler complained to the police about “vibrations” at his home to the Sperry Police Department and Officer Carr on several occasions.

Carr Br. at 2, ¶ 10; Pl. Resp. Oppo. To Def. Carr Mot at 8, ¶ 8, ECF No. 45 (June 4, 2021) (“Pl. Carr Resp.”); Pl. Carr Resp., Ex. 8 at 1. Officer Carr had gone to Buttler's neighborhood and house multiple times after Buttler's complaints, but never noticed any vibrations. Carr Br. at 2-3, ¶ 12; Pl. Carr Resp. at 8 ¶ 10. Officer Carr described Buttler as “agitated” at times. Carr Br. at 3, ¶ 13; Pl. Carr Resp. at 8, ¶ 11; Pl. Carr Resp., Ex. 4 at 24-25. Officer Carr reported that Buttler was wandering around looking for the source of the vibrations at “2:00 or 3:00 in the morning.” See Carr Br. at 2-3, ¶ 12-13; Pl. Carr Resp. at 8-9, ¶ 11, 13; Pl. Carr Resp., Ex. 4 at 24-25.

On April 24, 2019, Buttler went to the police station and met with Officer Carr to discuss the vibrations. Carr Br. at 1, ¶ 1; Pl. Carr Resp. at 2, ¶ 1. Officer Carr recorded their conversation with his bodycam. See EXHIBIT(S) # 11 (1 CD), ECF No. 46 (June 7, 2021) (Ex. 11 of Pl. Carr Resp.). In the recording, Buttler explained that he had been searching for the source of the vibrations, which he could hear only inside of his house. Id. He stated that the vibrations were causing his house to “shak[e] to pieces.” Id. Officer Carr responded that his contacts at the United States Geological Survey could not identify anything causing the shaking. Id. Buttler said he did not think it was seismic activity but explained that he checks the utility poles and street signs for shaking throughout the day and night. Id. Buttler said that a large oak tree was vibrating at “1:30, 2 o'clock in the morning” while he was walking around looking for the shaking. Id. at 6:01. Buttler also asked Officer Carr where the sewer pipes and pumps were, believing that those could be the source. Id.

Officer Carr later stated in a deposition that at that point in time he began to believe “that this may be a delusional thing.” Pl. Carr Resp., Ex. 2 at 15 (“Carr Depo.”); Carr Br. at 3, ¶ 15. Officer Carr explained that, after multiple encounters with Buttler, Carr believed Buttler was “a person whose level of distress or mental health symptoms have exceeded the ability to manage his/her behavior or emotions.”^[1] Carr Br. at 4, ¶ 19-20; Carr Depo. at 37-38. Officer Carr specifically reported that he was concerned about Buttler because of the “multiple times Mr. Buttler reported he wanders around at night looking for the source of the vibrations sometimes at two or three in the morning.” Carr Br. at 3, ¶ 17; Carr Depo. at 2425.

After Buttler left, Officer Carr prepared a police report detailing the interaction. Carr Br. at 5, ¶ 29; Sperry Br., Ex. 4 (“MHC Records”) at 4-8. The report indicated that Buttler was “suspected to be 10-85,”^[2] noted that Buttler complained approximately 3-4 times a week for the past 8 weeks, and stated that Buttler appeared “agitated.” MHC Records at 6-7. Buttler's complaints were about “someone ‘running a large generator' and that ‘vibrations ad [sic] destroying the house.'” Id. at 7. The report also stated that Buttler was “for the most part [] congenial,” but also stated that he was “know[n] to have a larger collection of firearms. [But] Buttler has NOT exhibited any violent tendencies.”^[3] MHC Records at 7 (emphasis in original). Officer Carr allowed Buttler to leave the police station on Buttler's own. Carr Depo. at 39.

Sometime after, Officer Carr met with Chief of Police Justin Burch to discuss Buttler. Sperry Br., Ex. 1 (“Burch Depo.”) at 4. Chief Burch believed he spoke with Officer Carr about Buttler “being a potential 1085, but not necessarily disturbed.” Burch Depo. at 4. Chief Burch stated that he told Officer Carr that the situation did not need emergency detention, but advised that Officer Carr “might want to go civil route,” referring to a petition for a mental health evaluation. Burch Depo. at 5. Chief Burch had done only a single emergency detention in his career, which required “immediate danger to himself or others” that Chief Burch believed Buttler's situation did not meet. Burch Depo. at 5-7. Chief Burch agreed with Officer Carr's decision to pursue the treatment petition. Burch Depo. At 7. Although officers received some training in mental health issues, there was “not a policy and procedure” or training for officers to file a treatment petition at the time. Burch Depo. at 12-13.

On April 29, 2019, Officer Carr filed an “Out of Custody Petition for Mental Health Treatment and Application for Release of Confidential Records.” MHC Records at 2-8; Carr Br. at 5, ¶ 30. The petition required that Officer Carr had “good reason to believe, and does believe” that Buttler was “a person requiring treatment as defined in 43A O.S. § 1-103(13).”^[4] MHC Records at 2. He attached the police report as “the facts upon which these allegations are based.” MHC Records at 2-8; Carr Br. at 5, ¶ 30;. At the same time, Officer Carr also filed a “Request for Pre-Hearing Detention,” also relying on the police report. MHC Records at 9. The form to file the request stated that the respondent “represent[ed] a risk of harm to self or others such that an order directing pre-hearing detention . . . is necessary.” MHC Records at 9.

Later, in a deposition, Officer Carr explained that he did not believe upon filing the petitions that Buttler was “in such an extreme level of danger” that an emergency order for detention was necessary. Carr Depo. at 40. Officer Carr thought Buttler needed treatment but was not at an extreme level of danger to himself or others; however, Officer Carr completed the pre-hearing detention request because it was attached to the petition. Carr Depo. at 40-41. He testified that he did not “pay enough attention” to the form and did not mean to request prehearing detention. Carr Depo. at 48-49.

On April 30, 2019, after considering the forms Officer Carr filed, the Tulsa mental health court ordered a mental health evaluation and pre-hearing detention of Buttler. MHC Records at 10-16. On May 1, 2019, several Tulsa County sheriff's officers arrested Buttler for the purpose of psychiatric evaluation.; Pl. Carr Resp., Ex. 8. On May 3, 2019, the treatment center discharged Buttler without medication or the need for follow-up. MHC Records at 17-22.

In his complaint, Buttler alleges the following claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Count 1 alleges a violation of his right to due process and to be free from unreasonable seizure and detention against Officer Carr for filing “a Petition for Plaintiff's involuntary commitment that was entirely and demonstrably incorrect” and devoid of probable cause; Count 2 alleges that the unconstitutional policies and customs of the City of Sperry directly led to the violations, constituting municipal liability;^[5] Count 3 alleges state law negligence, wrongful imprisonment, and false arrest claims against the City of Sperry as liable for Officer Carr's failure to use reasonable care in the scope of his employment; and Count 4 alleges state law malicious prosecution against the City of Sperry for Officer Carr filing the petitions without probable cause. Compl. at 8-13, ECF No. 2 (July 22, 2020) (“Compl.”).^[6] For Count 2, Buttler specifically alleged that there was a municipal policy based on the City of Sperry ratifying Officer Carr's conduct and failing to train its officers in the mental health context. Compl. at 11-12.

Defendants now move for summary judgment.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

Buttler seeks relief for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343. Compl. at 2. Buttler also asserts the court's supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Compl. at 2.

The court shall grant summary judgment if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). It should not be granted “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.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The court must draw all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the non-movant. Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2011).

DISCUSSION

I. Officer Carr's Motion for Summary Judgment

“[T]he seizure of a person for an emergency mental health evaluation is a restriction on the fundamental right of personal liberty and so is governed by the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Meyer v. Bd. of Cnty Comm'rs of Harper Cnty., Okla., 482 F.3d 1232, 1239 (10th Cir. 2007). This type of seizure is closely analogous to criminal arrest, and “must be supported by probable cause sufficient to justify a criminal arrest.” Id. at 1240. ...