Dixon v. City of Syracuse

1

PETER DIXON, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF SYRACUSE, FORMER POLICE OFFICER AHMAD MIMS, POLICE OFFICER JACOB BREEN, POLICE OFFICER PATRICK MOORE, POLICE OFFICER NICHOLAS VOGEL, POLICE OFFICER DAVID CRAW, POLICE OFFICER LEONARD BROWN, POLICE OFFICER JOEL DORCHESTER, POLICE OFFICER ANDREW MURPHY, and UNIDENTIFIED POLICE OFFICERS, Defendants.

No. 5:20-CV-381

United States District Court, N.D. New York

September 18, 2024

APPEARANCES:

THE LAW OFFICE OF FRED LICHTMACHER P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

OF COUNSEL:

FRED B. LICHTMACHER, ESQ.

MARY L. D'AGOSTINO, ESQ.

JOHN G. POWERS, ESQ.

DECISION AND ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 1, 2020, plaintiff Peter Dixon (“Dixon” or “plaintiff') commenced this civil rights action against defendants the City of Syracuse (“The City of Syracuse”), former police officer Ahmad Mims (“Officer Mims”), police officer Jacob Breen (“Officer Breen”), police officer Patrick Moore (“Officer Moore”), police officer Nicholas Vogel (“Officer Vogel”), police officer David Craw (“Officer Craw”), police officer Leonard Brown (“Officer Brown”), police officer Joel Dorchester (“Officer Dorchester”), police officer Andrew Murphy (“Officer Murphy”), and unidentified police officers (collectively, “defendants”). Dkt. No. 1.

Dixon's amended complaint^[1]asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of his right to a fair trial, racial profiling, an illegal stop, and municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Dkt. No. 12.

On June 26, 2020, defendants moved pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule(s)”) 12(b)(5) and (6) dismiss certain claims and defendants.

Dkt. No. 22. That motion was granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2020. Dkt. No. 31. Dixon's illegal stop claim was dismissed with prejudice. Id. Defendants filed an answer to plaintiff's remaining claims on October 15, 2020, Dkt. No. 33, and the parties completed an extensive period of discovery.

On October 27, 2023, defendants moved pursuant to Rule 56 for summary judgment dismissing the remainder of Dixon's claims. Dkt. Nos. 135, 139, 140, 141, 143.^[2]The motions have been fully briefed and will be considered on the basis of the submissions and without oral argument.

II. BACKGROUND^[3]

A. First Incident

On April 22, 2017, at approximately 5:50 P.M., Dixon pulled over on Rowland Street in Syracuse, New York. Breen and Moore Facts ¶¶ 2, 4; Mims Facts ¶ 2; Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 3; Ex. 1 to Lichtmacher Decl., Dkt. No. 157-3 at 3. According to plaintiff, he pulled over to place a call to Pizza Hut to order pizza for his family. Breen and Moore Facts ¶¶ 2, 4; Mims Facts ¶ 2; Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 3; Ex. 1 to Lichtmacher Decl., Dkt. No. 157-3 at 3.

That day, Officer Mims, Officer Breen, and Officer Moore were working as part of a Crime Reduction Assignment in Syracuse. Breen and Moore's Facts ¶ 1; Mims Facts ¶ 1. Officer Breen was driving a marked police car (“Car No. 523”) with Officer Mims seated beside him in the front passenger seat; Officer Moore was sitting in the backseat. Breen and Moore Facts ¶1; Mims Facts ¶ 1. That same day, Officer Craw and Officer Vogel were assigned to patrol car number 522 (“Car No. 522”). Craw and Vogel Facts ¶ 1.

At about 6:20 P.M., Officer Mims, Officer Breen, and Officer Moore noticed Dixon's car parked in front of a “no parking” sign.^[4] Breen and Moore Facts ¶¶ 2, 4-5; Mims Facts ¶ 2. Officer Breen pulled Car No. 523 alongside plaintiffs car. Breen and Moore Facts ¶ 1.

Officer Mims approached Dixon's driver's side door and asked for plaintiffs license and registration. Mims Facts ¶¶ 4-5. Plaintiffs driver's side door window was missing and had been replaced with clear plexiglass. Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 4. Because he was unable to roll down his window to hand over his identification, plaintiff attempted to hold his I.D. up to the plexiglass for Officer Mims to inspect. Pl.'s Resp. to Mims Facts ¶¶ 4-6.

But as Dixon reached for his license on the center console, Officer Mims lost track of plaintiffs hand movements inside the vehicle and became alarmed. Pl.'s Resp. to Mims Facts ¶ 5; Mims Facts ¶ 7. Officer Mims drew his weapon on plaintiff and ordered him to get out of the car. Pl.'s Resp. to Mims Facts ¶ 7; Mims' Facts ¶¶ 7-8. Plaintiff, too, became alarmed because his three children were seated in the backseat of his car. Pl.'s Resp. to Mims Facts ¶ 8.

Dixon refused to get out of the car. Pl.'s Resp. to Mims Facts ¶ 8. Instead, he reached for the car's gearshift. Mims Facts ¶ 9. As plaintiff reached for the gear shift, Officer Mims began to punch the plexiglass covering plaintiff's driver-side window to prevent him from fleeing.^[5]Id. But plaintiff put the car in reverse and turned onto South Geddes street before Officer Mims could stop him. Id. ¶ 10.

Officer Mims ran back to Car No. 523 to give chase. Mims Facts ¶ 12. As Dixon turned onto South Geddes Street, Officer Vogel and Officer Craw pursued him in Car No. 522 with Car No. 523-carrying Officer Mims, Officer Breen, and Officer Moore-following right behind. Mims Facts ¶ 13. Both cars had their lights and sirens activated. Id.

B. Second Incident

Car No. 523-and Officer Mims, Officer Breen, and Officer Moore-caught up with Dixon's vehicle at the corner of South Geddes and Hartson streets.^[6]Mims Facts ¶ 14. Officer Mims exited the police cruiser and attempted to approach plaintiffs driver-side door but plaintiff put his own car into reverse and turned around on South Geddes street. Pl.'s Resp. to Mims Facts ¶¶ 1516; Mims Facts ¶ 17.

According to Dixon, he swerved around Officer Mims as he began to hear gun shots. Pl.'s Resp. to Mims Facts ¶ 19; Ex. 1 to Lichtmacher Decl. at 1819. According to Officer Mims, however, as plaintiff turned his car around on South Geddes street, he began to accelerate towards him. Mims' Facts ¶ 18. Fearing that plaintiff was going to run him over, Officer Mims fired five consecutive shots without pause at the nose and tires of plaintiffs car.^[7]Id. ¶¶ 19-20.

Every one of the Officer Mims' shots missed Dixon. Mims Facts ¶¶ 21-22. They also failed to stop the car, which continued down South Geddes street. Id. Officer Vogel stayed at the scene while Officer Craw attempted to pursue plaintiff in Car No. 522. Craw and Vogel Facts ¶¶ 8, 22.

A police chase ensued.^[8]Craw and Vogel Facts ¶ 21. Sometime later, Officer Dorchester and Officer Brown heard a radio transmission describing an altercation between a vehicle and officers on South Geddes street. Murphy, Brown, and Dorchester Facts ¶ 3. The dispatcher gave a description of the driver that matched Dixon. Id. ¶ 4. Officer Dorchester and Officer Brown then heard a second radio transmission between the dispatcher and Car No. 523:

[Dispatcher]: 523, We need to confirm: where shots fired at you or the other way around, sir? [Vehicle No. 523]: Other way around. Suspect, uh, attempted to hit multiple officers with his vehicle.”

Id. ¶ 5.^[9]

Officer Dorchester and Officer Brown responded. They encountered Dixon as he was driving toward the Oneida Indian Reservation (the “Reservation”). Murphy, Brown, and Dorchester Facts ¶ 6. They then pursued plaintiff southbound on Clevland road with their patrol car's lights and sirens activated. Id. ¶ 7. Officer Dorchester and Officer Brown observed that the tires on the passenger-side of plaintiff's car were missing. Id. ¶ 8. But plaintiff did not pull over. Id. ¶ 9.

The chase continued. Dixon eventually reached the Reservation and stopped his vehicle on private property. Murphy, Brown, and Dorchester Facts ¶ 11. Officer Dorchester and Officer Brown arrived soon after. Id. ¶ 12. Officer Brown exited his patrol car and approached plaintiffs car. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. He struck plaintiff in the head, pulled him from the car, threw plaintiff to the ground face down, and fell on top of him. Id.; Pl.'s Resp. to Murphy, Brown, and Dorchester Facts ¶ 12; Ex. 1 to Lichtmacher Decl. at 23. Officer Murphy arrived on the scene and saw as Officers Dorchester and Brown struggling with plaintiff on the ground. Murphy, Brown, and Dorchester Facts ¶¶ 21-23.

While Dixon was on the ground in a tangle of bodies, Officer Dorchester and Officer Brown commanded plaintiff to “surrender his hands.”^[10]Murphy, Brown, and Dorchester Facts ¶ 14. Plaintiff did not comply. Id. According to plaintiff, he could not comply: his arms were pinned underneath his body. Pl.'s Resp. to Murphy, Brown, and Dorchester Facts ¶ 14; Ex. 1 to Lichtmacher Decl. at 24. In either case, Officer Dorchester and Officer Brown delivered striking blows to plaintiffs body-including his head- several times. Murphy, Brown, and Dorchester Facts ¶ 15. Officer Murphy also struck plaintiff two to three times in his head “to try to gain his compliance.” Id. ¶ 25. Officer Dorchester and Officer Brown eventually managed to put plaintiff in handcuffs. Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiff was arrested.

On November 9, 2017, an Onondaga County Grand Jury returned a nine-count indictment that charged Dixon of criminal mischief, reckless endangerment, unlawfully fleeing a police officer, reckless driving, endangering the welfare of each of his three children, resisting arrest, and unlawful possession of marihuana. Breen and Moore's Facts ¶ 19; Ex. A to Powers Decl., Dkt. No. 141-2 at 2-3. These charges were later dismissed upon a motion by the Onondaga District Attorney. Pl.'s Opp'n, Dkt. No. 153 at 6.^[11]Plaintiff's lawsuit followed.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 56, summary judgment is proper where “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.”...