Elliott v. Golston

1

T.C. TYRA ELLIOTT, Plaintiff, v. L. GOLSTON, et al., Defendants.

No. 19-2767-TLP-tmp

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

February 17, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Tu M Pham, Chief United States Magistrate Judge

On November 8, 2019, plaintiff T.C. Tyra Elliott filed a pro se complaint asserting § 1983 claims against Shelby County Sheriff's Office (“SCSO”) Deputy Leon Golston, Jr., Deputy Deddrick Moore, and Sergeant Chad Cunningham.^[1] (ECF No. 1.) Presently before the court are motions for summary judgment filed by all three defendants on May 11, 2021.^[2] (ECF Nos. 112, 113, 114.) Elliott filed responses on May 17 and May 25, 2021. (ECF Nos. 115 116, 119.) Defendants filed their replies on May 28, 2021. (ECF Nos. 121, 122, 123.) For the following reasons, it is recommended that all three motions for summary judgment be granted on the basis of qualified immunity.

I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Procedural Matters

1. Summary Judgment briefing

As an initial matter, Elliott's responses to the motions for summary judgment do not address the defendants' statement of undisputed material facts or provide citations to the record. Local Rule 56 requires that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment “must respond to each fact set forth by the movant by either: (1) agreeing that the fact is undisputed; (2) agreeing that the fact is undisputed for the purpose of ruling on the motion for summary judgment only; or (3) demonstrating that the fact is disputed.” LR 56.1(b). Furthermore, “[e]ach disputed fact must be supported by specific citation to the record.” Id.

Similarly, Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a party support or challenge factual assertions by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). When a party fails to properly challenge an opposing party's assertion of fact, Rule 56(e)(2) permits the court to “consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2); see also LR 56.1(d) (“Failure to respond to a moving party's statement of material facts . . . within the time periods provided by these rules shall indicate that the asserted facts are not disputed for purposes of summary judgment.”). The court need not consider any unsupported factual assertions.^[3] See id.; see also Gunn v. Senior Servs. of N. Ky., 632 Fed.Appx. 839, 847 (6th Cir. 2015) (“‘[C]onclusory and unsupported allegations, rooted in speculation,' are insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact for trial.”) (quoting Bell v. Ohio State Univ., 351 F.3d 240, 253 (6th Cir. 2003)). Accordingly, the statements of undisputed material facts filed by defendants, which are supported by sworn declarations and/or citations to the complaint, are deemed undisputed for the purposes of resolving these summary judgment motions.

The court notes that in Cunningham's motion for summary judgment, he did not attach exhibits to his motion but instead filed a statement of undisputed material facts that only cites to Elliott's complaint. In other words, Cunningham essentially stipulates (for the purposes of resolving this motion) that certain factual allegations in the complaint are true. Elliott does not challenge any of Cunningham's factual assertions, and most importantly, the fact that Cunningham threatened to use pepper spray on Elliott but did not actually deploy pepper spray.

“[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility 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.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “The movant may meet the initial burden by ‘pointing out to the court that the nonmoving party, having had sufficient opportunity for discovery, has no evidence to support an essential element of his or her case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Kelly, No. 16-cv-12544, 2017 WL 3085519, at *3 (E.D. Mich. July 17, 2017) (quoting Farmington Cas. Co. v. Cyberlogic Techs., Inc., 996 F.Supp. 695, 698 (E.D. Mich. 1998)). Cunningham's motion for summary judgment, filed after the close of discovery, asserts that Elliott cannot establish that Cunningham violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Cunningham contends that the lack of any constitutional violation entitles him to qualified immunity and therefore summary judgment. By alleging the inability of Elliott to produce evidence of any constitutional violation, Cunningham has met his initial burden.^[4] See id.

2. Video recordings submitted by Elliott

On May 24, 2021, the court entered an order granting Elliott leave to file video recordings that he obtained from the defendants during discovery and which he claimed show his physical altercations with the defendants at issue in this case. (ECF No. 118, at 1-2.) In response to that order, on June 1, 2021, Elliott filed five CDs labeled “V1” through “V5, ” each containing several video files, along with a document styled “Demonstrative Exhibits in Response to Defendants Summary Judgment” (ECF No. 124) (hereinafter referred to as “notice of filing”), in which he attempts to provide his own commentary regarding the events depicted in the video recordings. On June 16, 2021, defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the notice of filing as exceeding the scope of the court's order authorizing Elliott to file video recordings.^[5] (ECF No. 125.) Elliott filed a response on June 28, 2021, urging the court not to strike his notice of filing. (ECF No. 126.)

Since the video recordings were produced by the defendants during discovery and given Elliot's status as a pro se litigant, the court will give Elliott the benefit of the doubt and will consider the video recordings contained on the CDs.^[6] The court will not, however, consider the unsupported factual assertions in Elliott's notice of filing to the extent they go beyond identifying the relevant video files and the individuals appearing in them. Similarly, the court will not consider any legal arguments in Elliott's notice of filing or his personal commentary on the events depicted in the videos. When permitting Elliott to file video recordings of his altercations with defendants, the court did not authorize him to make any additional legal arguments or provide commentary on the videos. (ECF No. 118.) As defendants correctly point out, briefing on these motions for summary judgment closed once reply briefs were filed. See LR 56.1(c). Additionally, as stated above, because Elliott did not respond to defendants' statement of facts, the factual assertions contained therein “are not disputed for purposes of summary judgment.” LR 56.1(d); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2).

B. Events of June 7, 2019

1. Findings of facts based on Golston's and Cunningham's Statement of Undisputed Facts

On June 7, 2019, Elliott was arrested while present in a court proceeding in the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County. (ECF No. 1, at 2; ECF No. 113-2, at 1.) At that time, Golston was employed by SCSO as a Sheriff's Deputy. (ECF No. 113-1, at 1.) While performing his duties as a Sheriff's Deputy at the Juvenile Court, Golston came into contact with Elliott. (Id.) Elliott alleges that Golston forced him into a holding cell and “rammed [him] full force about 5 to 10 feet . . . face first into a metal wall.” (ECF No. 79, at 2; ECF No. 104, at 11.) However, based on the undisputed statement of undisputed facts supporting Golston's motion, the court finds that during the encounter Golston did not ram Elliott face first into a metal wall of a holding cell. (ECF No. 113-1, at 2.)

Also on June 7, 2019, sometime after Elliott was arrested, Cunningham threatened Elliott with a can of pepper spray, stating that he would pepper spray Elliott in the mouth if he did not be quiet. (ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) However, Cunningham did not actually pepper spray Elliot, which Elliot does not dispute. (Id.)

2. Video evidence submitted by Elliott

While the court finds that the facts stated above are undisputed for the purposes of resolving these motions, the court will also address the video recordings submitted by Elliott. The notice of filing refers only to video recordings located on CDs “V3, ” “V4, ” and “V5, ” and Elliott does not provide dates for any of the footage.^[7] (Id. at 1-3.) Upon review of the video files on these CDs, it appears that each disc contains video footage recorded on different dates.^[8] Based on Elliott's notice of filing and the court's review of the video footage, only the video files contained on CD “V4” contain footage of Elliott interacting with Cunningham on June 7, 2019, and only the video files contained on CD “V5” contain footage of Elliott's altercation with Golston on June 7, 2019. According to Elliott's notice of filing, however, CD “V5” contains footage of the events leading up to his confrontation with Cunningham on June 7.^[9] (Id. at 2.)

CD “V4” contains two video files. Elliott's notice of filing identifies Cunningham as one of “the deputies of [the] juvenile court” present in that footage. (Id. at 2.) However, the footage does not...