Craven v. Novelli

661 F.Supp.3d 430

Amy Rhinehart CRAVEN, Plaintiff, v. Christopher NOVELLI, Alexander Arndt and the Town of Mooresville, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-00174-KDB-DSC

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division

Signed March 12, 2023

Filed March 13, 2023

Jennifer Michelle Houti, John Alexander Heroy, James McElroy & Diehl, P.A., Charlotte, NC, for Plaintiff.

Jake William Stewart, Patrick Houghton Flanagan, Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog, LLP, Charlotte, NC, for Defendants.

ORDER

Kenneth D. Bell, United States District Judge

Amy Craven, Chris Craven's widow, filed this action against two Mooresville, North Carolina police officers and the Town of Mooresville ("Town") claiming that police misconduct led to his death. On August 2, 2020, Alexander Arndt and Christopher Novelli ("Officers") responded to a "911" emergency call saying that Mr. Craven had assaulted his wife and threatened to "blow his brains out." On the way to the Craven residence, they were told by the dispatcher that he was armed with a gun and yelling. When the Officers arrived, Mr. Craven was shot and killed by the Officers after he (at a minimum) reached towards his handgun after being instructed by the Officers to keep his hands raised. Now before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19), Plaintiff's Motion in Limine and Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 28) and the Parties' respective Motions to Seal (Doc. Nos. 17, 23).

Most simply put, Chris Craven died tragically, but not unlawfully. The Court has carefully reviewed all the evidence in detail, including the Officers' body camera videos and the 911 call. In light of the limited information that the Officers knew as they approached the residence and Mr. Craven's actions in the few seconds after the Officers saw him in front of his house, no jury could reasonably find that the Officers used unconstitutionally excessive force in responding to Mr. Craven's immediate threat to their safety. Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment for the Defendants. The Court will also deny Plaintiff's Motion in Limine and Motion to Strike because the 911 call evidence that Plaintiff seeks to exclude is relevant to Plaintiff's claims. Finally, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Parties' Motions to Seal, unsealing only that portion of the submitted evidence that the Court relies on in ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment and sealing the remainder to honor Plaintiff's appropriate request for privacy.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate "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." United States v. 8.929 Acres of Land in Arlington Cnty., Virginia, 36 F.4th 240, 252 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)); see United States f/u/b Modern Mosaic, LTD v. Turner Construction Co., et al., 946 F.3d 201, 206 (4th Cir. 2019). A factual dispute is considered genuine "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, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); 8.929 Acres of Land, 36 F.4th at 252. "A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id., (quoting Libertarian Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308, 313 (4th Cir. 2013)).

The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact through citations to the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits in the record. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (when the nonmoving party "has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of [his] claim with respect to which [he] has the burden of proof," summary judgment is warranted); United States ex rel. Gugenheim v. Meridian Senior Living, LLC, 36 F.4th 173, 178 (4th Cir. 2022). If the movant satisfies his initial burden to demonstrate "an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case," the burden shifts to the nonmovant to "present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." 8.929 Acres of Land, 36 F.4th at 252, quoting Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. Lessard Design, Inc., 790 F.3d 532, 540 (4th Cir. 2015). "The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment." Hixson v. Moran, 1 F.4th 297, 302 (4th Cir. 2021). Rather, the nonmoving party must establish that a material fact is genuinely disputed by, inter alia, "citing to particular parts of the materials of record" and cannot rely only on "conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A); 8.929 Acres of Land, 36 F.4th at 252, quoting Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013).

Still, summary judgment is not intended to be a substitute for a trial of the facts. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In determining if summary judgment is appropriate, "courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and refrain from weigh[ing] the evidence or mak[ing] credibility determinations." Variety Stores, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 888 F.3d 651, 659 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lee v. Town of Seaboard, 863 F.3d 323, 327 (4th Cir. 2017)). "Summary judgment cannot be granted merely because the court believes that the movant will prevail if the action is tried on the merits." Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 568-69 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting 10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2728 (3d ed. 1998)). In the end, the relevant inquiry on summary judgment is "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

During the summer of 2020, Chris and Amy Craven lived in Mooresville, North Carolina with Taylor Dunn, Ms. Craven's twenty-one year old daughter from a previous marriage (who had lived with the Cravens since they married in 2007), and the Cravens' biological son and daughter, who were thirteen and seven. It was a stressful time for the Craven family (as it was for many in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic). Chris had worked for Hendricks Motor Sports as a parts coordinator throughout the marriage, while Amy had been employed as the Director of Nursing at The Pines at Davidson since 2015. The pandemic forced Chris to work from home, while Amy continued to go into work for her nursing job. Consequently, Chris assumed more at-home parent duties and responsibilities.

Amy Craven and Dunn testified that because of the COVID-19 pandemic Chris struggled with depression and his pre-existing anxiety was exacerbated. (See Doc. No. 20-7 at 38-39; Doc. No. 20-6 at 28). On August 2, 2020, Amy went into work and Chris remained at home. That evening, Chris "went into [a] mental health crisis," (Doc. No. 20-7 at 57) during which he became increasingly anxious and frustrated and began expressing feelings that he did not want to live. (Doc. No. 20-6 at 14, 33-34). Ms. Craven and Dunn decided to call "911," and Dunn called at approximately 9:30 pm. (Id. at 33, 35).

Dunn's 911 call is chaotic and chilling, punctuated with loud screaming, children pleading with their father not to kill himself and ultimately the sound of gunshots after Mr. Craven goes outside to meet the police. See Doc. No. 20-11.¹ The first thing Dunn said to the 911 operator was, "My stepdad hit my mom in front of me and my siblings and he is threatening to blow his brains out and he is screaming and getting in her face and he won't stop." (Id. at 1; Doc. No. 20-6 at 53). Ms. Craven testified that Chris first left their bedroom then returned, shut the door with her still inside, and held a gun to his head, threatening to kill himself. (Doc. No. 20-7 at 61). At the same time, on the 911 call, Dunn was screaming at the operator that Mr. Craven had locked her mom in their room. (Doc. No. 20-11 at 2). Then, Mr. Craven came out of the bedroom and said, "Taylor called 911 so I'm going out there to do it right now, thank you." (Id.) This prompted more "kids crying and screaming in the background," as the children pleaded with their father not to end his life. (Id.). Also, at that point, Dunn responds "yes" to the operator's question, "Do you see a gun on him?" (although she then says that she just assumes he has a gun). The existence of the gun is later confirmed by both Ms. Craven and the Cravens' son. (Id. at 4; Doc. No. 20-7 at 69.).

At the time, Dunn also reported Mr. Craven had left the residence but she was unable to see what he was doing. (Doc. No. 20-11 at 4). Then, he came back into the house and asked for his phone, (Doc. No. 20-6 at 39; Doc. No. 20-11 at 5), saying that he wanted his phone so he could call his mother to tell her goodbye. (Id.). Seconds later, Mr. Craven can be heard saying, "When the police show up here, thank Taylor because (inaudible)" . . . "You won't have a (expletive) daddy no more (inaudible). (Doc. No. 20-11 at 5). Shortly after Mr. Craven makes those comments, he went outside and shots can be heard in the background, followed immediately by Dunn reporting to the operator amid screaming that she hears gunshots. (Doc. No. 20-11 at 6).

When Mooresville Police Department ("MPD") officers Arndt and Novelli received a dispatch call at approximately 9:30 p.m. that evening, they knew none of the Craven family's history and few of the details of Dunn's frantic 911 call (which they did not hear). What little they knew came from the dispatcher. In the...