Edger v. McCabe

572 F.Supp.3d 1143

Roland EDGER, Plaintiff,

v.Krista MCCABE, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 5:19-cv-01977-LCB

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division.

Signed November 18, 2021

Henry F. Sherrod, III, Henry F. Sherrod III PC, Florence, AL, for Plaintiff.

C. Gregory Burgess, Lauren A. Smith, Stephanie Margaret Gushlaw, Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne, P.C., Huntsville, AL, for Defendants.

ORDER

LILES C. BURKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On June 10, 2019, Officers Krista McCabe and Cameron Perillat arrested and took to jail Mr. Roland Edger, a man who, by all appearances, committed no crime. Following his arrest, the City of Huntsville dismissed all the charges Officers McCabe and Perillat brought against him in the Huntsville Municipal Court, all but conceding that Edger was guilty of no offense.

The Huntsville Police Department's mission statement calls on officers to "serve [their] community by protecting life, liberty, property, and defending the constitutional rights of all people with compassion, fairness, integrity, and professionalism."¹ Officers are reminded of this mission each day when they set out on patrol by the phrase emblazoned on their vehicles: "To serve and to protect."

As detailed below, Defendants McCabe and Perillat unnecessarily escalated their interaction with Plaintiff Roland Edger prior to his arrest–an escalation that was captured on bodycam.

The Court has pored over that footage, time and again, with the most critical eye permitted in accordance with law and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And, the Court has concluded after each viewing, that Officers McCabe and Perillat didn't meet the standards set out in the Huntsville Police Department's mission statement. Those failings notwithstanding, that same bodycam footage shows that there's no genuine issue of material fact in this case. While Edger certainly committed no crime, Officers McCabe and Perillat had arguable –and only arguable–probable cause to arrest him as to one offense. As such, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. But just by a hair's breadth.

For the reasons set out below, the Court DENIES Edger's Motion for Partial-Summary Judgment and GRANTS Defendants’ McCabe, Perillat and City of Huntsville's Motions for Summary Judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Edger is a mechanic at Auto Collision Body Shop. On June 9, 2019, Kajal Ghosh called Edger, and asked him to look at his wife's red Toyota Camry and to fix any issue that he found with it. (Doc. 28–5 at 12). Ghosh told Edger that the car was parked at Progressive Union Missionary Baptist Church in Huntsville, Alabama where Ghosh's wife worked as a teacher. (Doc. 28–5 at 11). The car keys were left in the church office, and Ghosh gave Edger permission to drive the car to Auto Collision if necessary. (Doc. 28–5 at 12).

On June 10, 2019, at around 2:00 p.m., Edger drove to the church to check on Mrs. Ghosh's car. (Doc. 28–1 at 62). Edger picked up the keys left for him in the church office; they were in an envelope with his name on it. (Doc. 28–1 at 62). After getting the keys and starting the car, Edger realized the car wouldn't steer properly, so he returned to Auto Collision. There, Edger asked Justin Nuby to go to the church with him to fix the tire on Mrs. Ghosh's car and to bring the car back to the shop if necessary. (Doc. 28–6 at 9). Nuby agreed. Id. The two arrived at the church in Edger's black hatchback. (Doc. 28–6 at 9–10).

At 8:05 p.m., Kendraus Turner, the church's on-duty security guard, called 9-1-1. He reported to the dispatcher that that he'd seen two Hispanic males on church grounds while on foot patrol. Specifically, Turner reported that the men were "messing with an employee's car that was left on the lot" and that they had removed one of the car's wheels.

I. Officers McCabe and Perillat's Contact with Edger

At approximately 8:36 p.m., Officer McCabe arrived at the church and made contact with Edger and Nuby. When Officer McCabe arrived, Edger was laying on the ground on the passenger side of Mrs. Ghosh's car, jacking it up. Nuby was standing by the front passenger side of the car. Noticing Officer McCabe, one of the men asked her how she was doing, and she replied that she was "good" and asked how they were doing. McCabe then exited her vehicle and approached them. The following exchange – captured on bodycam footage – then occurred:

McCabe: What are ya'll doing?

Edger: Huh?

McCabe: What are ya'll doing?

Edger: Getting the car fixed.

McCabe: Is this your car?

Edger: Yea. Well, it is one of my customer's.

McCabe: One of your customer's?

Edger: Ghosh Patel, yep. I was over here earlier.

McCabe: Whose car is that?

Edger: That's mine.

McCabe: The black one?

Edger: Yea.

(Doc. 28–1 at 78; Doc. 28–9 at 6).

The bodycam footage shows a long pause followed this interaction, during which time Edger continued to try to jack up Mrs. Ghosh's car. During Edger's efforts, however, Mrs. Ghosh's car fell off the jack. McCabe then reengaged with Edger:

McCabe: Alright. Take a break for me real fast and do ya'll have driver's license or IDs on you?

Edger: I ain't going to submit to no ID right now. Listen, you call the lady right now. Listen, I don't have time for this. I don't mean to be mean, rude, or ugly, but

McCabe: Okay. No, you do need to give me your ID or driver's license ...

Edger: I don't mean to be ... No I don't. Listen, I don't want you to run me in for nothing.

McCabe: Are you refusing me, are you refusing to give me your ID or driver's license?

Edger: I'm telling you that if you will call this lady that owns this car ...

McCabe: Step over that way.

(Doc. 28–1 at 78–79).

The bodycam footage unequivocally shows that McCabe first asked Edger for his license or ID at 8:37:33. McCabe asked for Edger's ID again at 8:37:43. (Doc. 28–9 at 6). Finally, McCabe asked if Edger was refusing to give her his ID at 8:37:50. Id. Officers McCabe and Perillat then arrested Edger at 8:37:54. Id. Only 21 seconds elapsed between McCabe's first request for Edger's identification and his arrest.

Footage taken from Officer Perillat's bodycam confirms this account of events. (Doc. 28-9 at 7). When Officer Perillat arrived on the scene, Mr. Edger and Officer McCabe were in conversation. Id. Six seconds after Officer Perillat arrived, McCabe asked Edger, "Are you refusing me – are you refusing to give me your ID or driver's license?" Edger responded, and three seconds later, Perillat placed Edger in handcuffs. When doing so, Officer Perillat scolded Edger, stating "we [Officers Perillat and McCabe] don't have time for this" and again chided him when adjusting his handcuffs, asking "will you shut up?"

About five minutes after taking Edger into custody, and while waiting for the results of Nuby and Edger's license scans, Officer Perillat told Nuby that "[w]hat we don't like, and what we can actually do is exactly what we just did," referring to Edger's arrest. (Doc. 28-9 at 7). Later, minutes before she departed with Edger in the back of her patrol car, Officer McCabe explained to Nuby that Edger wouldn't "get away with stuff like that – acting the way that he did." Id.

To be sure, Edger's attitude and demeanor towards Officers McCabe and Perillat was unnecessarily argumentative, contrary, and disrespectful. It clearly contributed to his arrest. This seems especially clear since Officer McCabe certainly wanted to make sure that Edger knew he couldn't act "the way that he did." In sum, Edger was clearly frustrated. The automobile he was called to repair had just slipped off the jack and fallen to the pavement. But had the two officers simply asked a few more questions instead of rushing to take Edger into custody, they would've quickly discovered that he was guilty of no crime. Instead, they just arrested him.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate only when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A fact is "material" if its resolution "may affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ. for Bibb Cnty. , 495 F.3d 1306, 1313 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997) ). A dispute is "genuine" if, under the evidence, "a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. (citing Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ. , 93 F.3d 739, 742 (11th Cir. 1996) ). In deciding whether there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact, a court must presume the nonmovant's evidence to be true and draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant's favor. Allen , 495 F.3d at 1314 (citing Shotz v. City of Plantation, Fla. , 344 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2003) ). "Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict." Strickland v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. , 692 F.3d 1151, 1154 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). Cross-motions for summary judgment have a standard of review that do

"not differ from the standard applied when only one party files a motion, but simply requires a determination of whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law on the facts that are not disputed."

Ness v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. , 257 F. Supp. 3d 1280, 1287 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (citing Am. Bankers Ins. Group v. United States , 408 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 2005) ). "The Court must consider each motion on its merits, resolving all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration." Id. As explained by the Eleventh Circuit, " ‘[c]ross-motions for summary judgment will not, in themselves, warrant the court in granting summary judgment unless one of the

...