Engle v. Nettle

KATHRYN E. ENGLE, PLAINTIFF, v. CHARLES H. NETTLE, et al., DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO. 5:14-cv-1161

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

August 1, 2016

JUDGE SARA LIOI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court, in this civil rights action, are the parties' respective summary judgment motions. Defendants, Officer Daniel Randall ("Randall"), Officer Robert Schmidt ("Schmidt"), Officer David Holzapfel ("Holzapfel"), Officer Richard Garinger ("Garinger"), Officer James McGowan ("McGowan"), Officer McIlvain (aka Officer 6384) ("McIlvain"), Officer Mark Ralston ("Ralston"), Sergeant Michael Heinl ("Heinl"), and Officer 2993 (aka Officer Luggelle) ("Luggelle") (collective "officers"), and Charles Nettle ("Nettle"), seek summary judgment in their favor on all claims on the merits, as well as qualified and/or statutory immunity for each claim. (Doc. No. 128 ["Def. MSJ"].) Plaintiff Kathryn Engle ("plaintiff" or "Engle") opposes the motion (Doc. No. 148 ["Def. MSJ Opp'n"]), and defendants have filed a reply. (Doc. No. 155 ["Def. MSJ Reply"].) Plaintiff also seeks judgment in her favor on all claims. (Doc. No. 134 ["Pl. MSJ"].) Defendants have filed a brief in opposition (Doc. No. 149 ["Pl. MSJ Opp'n"]), and plaintiff has filed a reply. (Doc. No. 156 ["Pl. MSJ Reply"].)¹ For the reasons that follow, plaintiff's summary judgment motion is DENIED, and defendants' dispositive motion is GRANTED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

The present case involves a series of interactions between plaintiff and police officers and a health inspector employed by the City of Cuyahoga Falls occurring between April 15, 2013 and June 4, 2013. Each of the incidents revolved around plaintiff's son, Kory Engle ("Kory"), and her son's girlfriend, Tanya Hess ("Tanya"), and their occupation of plaintiff's home. It is undisputed that, at all times relevant to the present action, plaintiff maintained a private residence at 1936 5th Street in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. The parties further agree that neither Kory nor Tanya held a property interest in this residence, nor did either individual's name appear on a lease to this premises. Beyond these undisputed facts, the parties' accounts of the various encounters differ substantially. Because the Court entertains defendants' summary judgment motion first, it takes all of the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the non-moving party. When the Court considers plaintiff's dispositive motion, it will view the facts in favor of defendants.

According to plaintiff, in March of 2013, she spent time in Omaha, Nebraska caring forher mother. (Doc. No. 130 (Deposition of Kathryn Engle ["K. Engle Dep."]) at 840.²) She decided to return to Ohio in April, however, because she had to file her taxes by April 15, 2013. (Id.) On her way back to Ohio, plaintiff became ill and was transported to a hospital for emergency surgery. (Id. 839-40.) She was released from the hospital and returned to her home in Cuyahoga Falls on April 14, 2013 to find that the handle on the front door had been damaged. (Id. at 825.) Once inside, she discovered a "huge mess" in the kitchen. An inspection of the rest of the dwelling revealed bags and boxes strewn everywhere and holes in the walls. When she discovered a baby's bed in her bedroom she deduced that her "estranged" son Kory had been living in her home in her absence with his "on and off girlfriend" Tanya and their child. (Id. at 825-26.) Because she was "exhausted" from her surgery, plaintiff immediately took some pain medication and went to bed. (Id. at 826)

She awoke in the middle of the night and decided to make a sign out of some poster board upon which she wrote "Kory & Tanya—Give me [a] couple Days. I am recuparating [sic] From surgery[.] You need to call & set up [a] time to come get your stuff out. I am selling [the] house. Do not trespass. Call me." (Id.; Doc. No. 128-2³ at 666, all capitalization in original.) Early on the morning of April 15, 2013, she backed her van halfway down her driveway and affixed the sign to the van. (K. Engle Dep. at 826.) She returned to her bedroom and went back to sleep. (Id. at 827.)

First Police Visit on April 15, 2013

Plaintiff awoke a second time briefly that morning and realized that many of her possessions, including clothing and family heirlooms, were missing. (Id.) Plaintiff took more pain medication and went back to sleep. (Id. at 828.) At 2:44 PM, plaintiff heard some loud voices and knocking at her front door. She looked out the bathroom window and saw Kory, Tanya, and four police officers walking up her driveway. There is no dispute at least one of the officers was defendant McGowan. (Doc. No. 128-10 (Declaration of Chief Jack Davis ["Davis Decl."]) ¶ 5.) Plaintiff called down to the group and inquired what was going on, and was advised by one of the officers that Kory and Tanya wanted to retrieve their belongings from her home. She directed the officers to the sign affixed to the van, advised the group that she needed to sleep, and suggested that Kory make an appointment. (K. Engle Dep. at 828-29.)

According to plaintiff, one or more officers informed her that Kory and Tanya needed to get inside the house because they lived there. (Id.) Plaintiff disputed this point, advising the officers that "no, they don't live here." (Id. at 829.) She then went downstairs and found her son preparing to enter the house through the window. Plaintiff attempted to lock window, at which time one of the officers yelled at Kory "you just break in that window right there. You go in the house. You have your ID. You just go in there and you let us in the back door." (Id. at 830.) Plaintiff responded "I go no. I go, he's not living here. I said, where are the keys, where is the contract, and we continually went on that." (Id.) Undaunted, Kory went through the unlocked window into the house, at which time he let two or three of the officers and Tanya into the home through the back door. (Id. at 838-39.) Again, plaintiff objected, reiterating that "[Kory and Tanya] don't live here and you have no right and they just continued to come in." (Id. at 830,838.) Once inside, Kory and Tanya began removing items from the home. While the officers instructed the couple to only retrieve clothing, plaintiff maintains that Tanya grabbed a big box of construction toys to which he had no right. (Id. at 839.)

Second Police Visit on April 15, 2013

Officer Randall returned to plaintiff's residence a second time on April 15, 2013. This time he was accompanied by Officer McIlvain. (Davis Decl. ¶ 5.) It appears from the record that the purpose of this visit was to afford Kory the opportunity to collect his cat and the cat's litter box from the residence. Kory did not gain entrance to plaintiff's home during this visit, as plaintiff managed to pass Kory the cat and its litter box through an open window. Plaintiff concedes that no officers entered her home at any time during this visit. (Id. at 845-46.)

Third Police Visit on April 15, 2013

The third and final visit on April 15, 2013 appears to have been a brief stop wherein Officers Schmidt and Holzapfel arrived and left the home without interacting with plaintiff. (Davis Decl. ¶ 5; Engle Dep. at 861-62.) As was the case with the second visit, plaintiff does not suggest that anyone entered her home during this visit.

Visit by Police, EMS, and Health Inspector on April 17, 2013

On April 17, 2013, Tanya came to the Cuyahoga Falls Police Station requesting assistance to obtain additional items from the 5th Street property. (Doc. No. 128-8 (Declaration of Richard Garinger ["Garinger Decl."]) ¶ 3.) Tanya advised Officer Garinger that she had been living at the 5th Street residence with her boyfriend and that her boyfriend's mother had returned home and would not let them in the house. (Id.) Garinger learned that Officer McGowan was one of the officers who had visited the residence on April 15, 2013 and contacted him about the encounter. (Id. ¶ 4; see Davis Decl. ¶ 5.) Officer McGowan confirmed that Tanya's property wasdiscovered inside the house. (Garinger Decl. ¶ 5.) Ultimately, Garinger concluded that Tanya was a resident of the property, as it was listed as her residence on her driver's license and she received mail at the residence. (Id.)

There is no dispute that Officers McGowan and Garinger accompanied Tanya to the residence on April 17, 2015. (Davis Decl. ¶ 6; see Garinger Decl. ¶ 7; see generally K. Engle Dep. at 864-78.) It is also beyond dispute that, upon their arrival, plaintiff refused to allow Tanya to enter to retrieve her property. (Garinger Decl. ¶ 7.) According to plaintiff, she heard knocking and went to the window above the back door, at which time Officer McGowan advised her that she had 30 seconds to get downstairs and open the back door otherwise the officers would break in. (K. Engle Dep. at 866.) When plaintiff turned around at the front of the stairs, she was surprised to find that Officer Garinger and Tanya were already inside the house.⁴ (Id. at 867.) Officer Garinger averred that, upon observing the poor and unsanitary conditions in the home, he had concerns regarding plaintiff's ability to care for herself and requested that someone from the Housing Department and EMS respond to the residence. (Garinger Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10.)

Plaintiff states that the only article of clothing she had on at the time she first discovered Tanya and Officer Garinger in her home was a black t-shirt that did not fully cover her "privates." (K. Engle Dep. at 867.) She recalled attempting to pull the shirt down further to more fully cover her body, during which she claims Tanya was standing behind Officer Garinger laughing at her. (Id.) Officer Garinger informed plaintiff that they had come to get Tanya's effects. Plaintiff asked if she could be permitted to put on pants or go to the bathroom. Officer Garinger denied both requests. (Id.) Tanya began filling garbage bags with items from the house,which included plainti...