Fleshner v. Tiedt

BILLY DUANE CARD FLESHNER, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW TIEDT et al., Defendants.

No. 15-CV-2033-LRR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION

September 21, 2016

ORDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 2

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................ 2

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ......................... 3

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD ......................... 3

V. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................... 5

A. The Parties ....................................... 5

B. Traffic Stop and Detention ............................ 5

C. Arrest .......................................... 8

D. Subsequent Events ................................. 10

VI. ANALYSIS ........................................... 9

A. Objective Reasonableness ............................ 11

1. Deputy Tiedt ................................ 13

2. Deputy Shores ............................... 15

3. Trooper Schaefer ............................. 16

4. Trooper Dickinson ............................ 20

B. Actual Injury .................................... 22

C. Qualified Immunity ................................ 23

VII. CONCLUSION ....................................... 24

I. INTRODUCTION

The matters before the court are Defendants Dan Schaefer and James E. Dickinson's (collectively, "State Defendants") "Motion for Summary Judgment" ("State Motion") (docket no. 33) and Defendants Matthew Tiedt and Kyle Shores's (collectively, "County Defendants") "Motion for Summary Judgment" ("County Motion") (docket no. 34).

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 14, 2015, Plaintiff Billy Duane Card Fleshner filed an Amended Complaint (docket no. 15) against Kenneth Wayne Wiley, the County Defendants, Connie Sents, Dan Pickett, Bremer County, Iowa, the State Defendants and Marks Auto Repair and Wrecker Service. In the Amended Complaint, Fleshner asserted five claims: (1) abuse of process under Iowa law against Wiley; (2) excessive force against the County Defendants and the State Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) unlawful search and seizure against the County Defendants and the State Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) conspiracy against all then-named Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (5) a request that the court recommend an investigation by the United States Attorney or convene a federal grand jury investigation of all then-named Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(a). On September 22, 2015, Pickett, Sents and the County Defendants filed an Answer (docket no. 16). On March 31, 2016, the State Defendants filed an Answer (docket no. 28). On December 14, 2015, Fleshner dismissed Marks Auto Repair and Wrecker Service. See Dismissal With Prejudice (docket no. 24) at 1.

On March 4, 2016, the court entered an Order dismissing the search and seizure, conspiracy and grand jury claims. See Mar. 4, 2016 Order (docket no. 26) at 14. On March 10, 2016, the court entered an Order directing Fleshner to show cause as to whyWiley should not be dismissed from the instant action, as it appeared to the court that Fleshner's claim against Wiley was barred as a matter of law. See Mar. 10, 2016 Order (docket no. 27) at 2. On April 4, 2016, Fleshner responded to the March 10, 2016 Order. See generally Response to Court Order to Show Cause (docket no. 29). On April 6, 2016, the court entered an Order dismissing the abuse of process claim against Wiley, noting that the claim as stated in the Amended Complaint is barred as a matter of law. See generally Apr. 6, 2016 Order (docket no. 31). Accordingly, the only remaining claim is the excessive force claim against the State Defendants and the County Defendants.

On August 4, 2016, the State Defendants filed the State Motion. On August 5, 2016, the County Defendants filed the County Motion. On August 29, 2016, Fleshner filed a Resistance (docket no. 35). Neither the State Defendants nor the County Defendants have filed a reply and the time for doing so has expired. No party has requested oral argument and the court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. The State Motion and the County Motion are fully submitted and ready for decision.

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The court has original jurisdiction over the excessive force claim because it arises under the United States Code. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.").

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "Summary judgment is proper 'if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show'" an absence of a genuine dispute as to a material fact. Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2)). "A dispute is genuine if the evidence is suchthat it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case." Amini v. City of Minneapolis, 643 F.3d 1068, 1074 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 252 (1986)). "The movant 'bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion,' and must identify 'those portions of [the record] . . . which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.'" Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (alterations in original) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). Once the movant has done so, "the nonmovant must respond by submitting evidentiary materials that set out 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324).

On a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Id. (quoting Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009)). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial," and summary judgment is appropriate. Ricci, 557 U.S. at 586 (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). "The nonmovant 'must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . .'" Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (quoting Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586). Instead, "[t]o survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must substantiate his allegations with sufficient probative evidence [that] would permit a finding in [his] favor based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy." Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC, 656 F.3d 782, 801 (8th Cir. 2011) (second and third alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Putman v. Unity Health Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2003)). Mere "self-serving allegations and denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact." Anuforo v. Comm'r, 614 F.3d 799, 807 (8th Cir. 2010).

V. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and affording him all reasonable inferences, the uncontested material facts are as follows.¹

A. The Parties

Fleshner is an individual residing in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Amended Complaint ¶ 2. Tiedt is a Deputy Sheriff with the Bremer County, Iowa Sheriff's Office. County Statement of Facts (docket no. 34-2) ¶ 2. Shores is also a Deputy Sheriff with the Bremer County Sheriff's Office. Id. ¶ 5. Dickinson is a Senior Trooper with the Iowa State Patrol. State Statement of Facts (docket no. 33-1) ¶ 1. Schaefer is a Trooper with the Iowa State Patrol. Id. ¶ 3.

B. Traffic Stop and Detention

On December 24, 2014, just prior to 6:00 p.m., Deputy Tiedt responded to a complaint that a dark green Jeep was swerving both within its own lane and into the other lane of traffic on Highway 218 southbound in Bremer County, Iowa.² County Statement of Facts ¶ 1. Fleshner was the driver of the Jeep. Deputy Tiedt responded to the complaint, caught up to the Jeep and followed it for a short time, personally observing the vehicle weaving within its own lane of traffic, touching both the fog line and center line once. See County Appendix (docket no. 34-3) at 8. Deputy Tiedt then initiated a traffic stop by activating his red and blue emergency warning lights. County Statement of Facts ¶ 3. Fleshner did not immediately pull over when Deputy Tiedt activated his siren.³ Id.Deputy Tiedt continued to follow Fleshner, periodically activating his siren, for approximately two minutes before Fleshner pulled off the highway and into a gas station parking lot. The video from Deputy Tiedt's dash camera shows that the shoulder of the road was clear and nothing was apparently preventing Fleshner from pulling over sooner.⁴

Deputy Tiedt approached the Jeep but could not see into the vehicle because of its heavily-tinted windows. County Statement of Facts ¶ 6. Deputy Tiedt initially approached the Jeep on the passenger side and requested that Fleshner roll down the window. Fleshner rolled down the window approximately two inches to speak with Deputy Tiedt. Id. Deputy Tiedt requested that Fleshner further roll down his window but Fleshner refused. Id. Deputy Tiedt requested that Fleshner provide him with his identification but Fleshner refused, instead asking why Deputy Tiedt had initiated the traffic stop. Id. ¶ 7. Deputy Tiedt informed Fleshner that he received a complaint that the Jeep was swerving within its own lane and into the other lane of traffic and that he had personally observed Fleshner swerving within his own lane and touching the fog line—indicating that Fleshner may be intoxicated. Deputy Tiedt again requested that...