Gooden v. City of Brunswick

JOSHUA GOODEN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BRUNSWICK, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12CV2918

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

Date: April 8, 2014

MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREG WHITE

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

This matter is currently before the Court for consideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Brian Mummert, Steven Hoover, and Carl DeForest.¹ (Doc. No. 20.) For the following reasons, this Motion is GRANTED.

I. Procedural Background

On October 19, 2012, Plaintiff Joshua Gooden ("Gooden") filed a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Medina County, Ohio, against the City of Brunswick; Brunswick Police Chief Carl DeForest; Brunswick Police Officers Brian Mummert, James Keaveney, RobertCasenhiser, and Steve Hoover; and, Charlene Gooden.² (Doc. No. 1-1.) The Complaint set forth claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of Gooden's rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as for failure to train and supervise. In addition, the Complaint asserted state law claims for malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and defamation and slander. (Doc. No. 1-1.) On November 26, 2012, Defendants City of Brunswick, DeForest, Mummert, Keaveney, Casenhiser and Hoover (hereinafter "the City of Brunswick Defendants") removed Plaintiff's action to this Court. (Doc. No. 1.) These Defendants thereafter filed an Answer on January 4, 2013.³ (Doc. No. 4.)

On April 23, 2013, the Court conducted a Case Management Conference, at which certain discovery and dispositive motion deadlines were set. (Doc. No. 13.) Of particular relevance herein, the Court ordered that "[d]iscovery necessary for the City of Brunswick Defendants to file a dispositive motion on the basis of qualified immunity shall be completed on or before June 28, 2013." (Doc. No. 13 at 2.) The Court further ordered that "[a]fter the Court rules on any such dispositive motion, the Court will allow further discovery if needed." (Doc. No. 13 at 2.) At that time, the Court also set a dispositive motions deadline of July 31, 2013. (Doc. No. 13 at 2.)

Upon motion of the Plaintiff, the Court later extended the deadline for discovery necessaryfor the City of Brunswick Defendants to file a dispositive motion to August 12, 2013. The dispositive motion deadline was extended to September 16, 2013 and, later, extended again to September 30, 2013. (Doc. No. 18.)

On September 30, 2013, Defendants Mummert, Hoover and DeForest filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment Based Upon Qualified Immunity." (Doc. No. 20.) Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition on October 30, 2013 (Doc. No. 21); and the moving Defendants replied on November 13, 2013. (Doc. No. 23.)

II. Factual Allegations

On October 21, 2011, Defendant Charlene Gooden went to the City of Brunswick Police Department and reported she had been physically attacked by her husband, Plaintiff Joshua Gooden. (Mummert Aff. at ¶ 3.) Defendant Mummert was on-duty at the time, and was assigned to take the report. (Mummert Aff. at ¶ 3.)

According to her written statement,⁴ Ms. Gooden and Plaintiff were married but had separated approximately two and one half months previously. (Doc. No. 21-4 at 1.) They had two minor children. Id. On the night in question, the children were staying with Plaintiff at a home owned by Aicheh Almeraisi. Id. In her statement, Ms. Gooden indicated she wasconcerned that Plaintiff's girlfriend, "Becky," would also be present. Id. Ms. Gooden reported she did not want "Becky" around the children, as it "upsets them." Id. Ms. Gooden called the home owner, Ms. Almeraisi, to express her concerns. Id. Ms. Almeraisi then called her daughter Eman, who was Plaintiff's roommate, to ask if "Becky" was at the residence. Id. Ms. Gooden reported that, shortly thereafter, Plaintiff called and yelled at her for inquiring about "Becky." Id. Ms. Gooden then "got off the phone with [Plaintiff]" and decided to "go check on" the children. Id.

Ms. Gooden reported to Defendant Mummert that, when she arrived at the residence, Plaintiff "told me to go outside." (Doc. No. 21-4 at 1.) Ms. Gooden stated that she "walk[ed] up the steps," and she and Plaintiff began arguing about his relationship with "Becky." Id. at 1-2. She indicated that "[Plaintiff] got mad for what I said" and "put his hands around my neck." Id. at 2. Ms. Gooden reported she yelled for help, at which time Plaintiff "took his hands off my neck, grab[bed] my arms, and threw me out of the house." Id. Ms. Gooden stated she then ran to her car. She claimed Plaintiff ran after her, grabbed on to the driver's side window, and "punched" her front windshield "with his bare hand." Id. Ms. Gooden stated she drove directly to the Brunswick Police Department, at which time she noticed a crack in her windshield from where Plaintiff had punched it. Id.

Defendant Mummert spoke with Ms. Gooden when she arrived at the police station, and took her statement. He avers that Ms. Gooden was "visibly upset and shaken" when recounting her version of events. (Mummert Aff. at ¶ 6.) He states he looked at her neck and arms "in order to document any visible bruises caused by the assault but did not observe any." Id. at ¶ 7. He also examined the windshield of Ms. Gooden's vehicle, and "observed a small 'spider' crackalong the left edge of the window." Id. at ¶ 8. Defendant Mummert avers that "[w]hile I think it was unlikely that Joshua Gooden caused the crack solely with his bare hand, it did not refute that Joshua may have struck the windshield with an object in his hand or that the small crack already existed and Charlene did not notice it until after Joshua struck the windshield with his fist." Id. In any event, Mummert states he "reasonably believed Joshua struck the windshield as indicated by Charlene, even though it was unlikely that he caused the crack with his bare hand." Id.

After having Ms. Gooden prepare a written statement, Mummert reported the information he had gathered to his supervisor, Defendant Hoover. (Doc. No. 20-1 at ¶ 10.) Hoover instructed Mummert to conduct a criminal record check on Plaintiff. Id. In doing so, Mummert learned Plaintiff had previously been convicted of domestic violence. Id. at ¶ 11. Mummert reported Plaintiff's previous conviction to Defendant Hoover and, further, indicated that he (Mummert) believed Ms. Gooden was being truthful about being assaulted by Plaintiff.⁵ Id. As a result, Mummert believed probable cause existed to charge Plaintiff with domestic violence. Id. Hoover agreed. Id.

Mummert avers that, because Plaintiff had previously been convicted of domestic violence, the charge against him as a result of the October 21, 2011 incident was a felony. (Doc. No. 20-1 at ¶ 12.) Ms. Gooden confirmed to Defendant Mummert that she wished to proceed with the felony charge. Id. Mummert then signed a complaint charging Plaintiff with felony domesticviolence in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.25(A)(D)(1)(3). Id. at ¶13. Mummert also states that an arrest warrant was issued by a deputy clerk of the Medina Municipal Court. Id. See also Doc. No. 20-1 at 9.

Mummert then proceeded to the Almeraisi residence in order to execute the arrest warrant for Plaintiff. When he arrived, Mummert spoke with Plaintiff regarding Ms. Gooden's allegations. According to Mummert's police report, Plaintiff described the incident as follows:

Joshua stated that Charlene . . . barged into the house uninvited and searched every room as if she was looking for Joshua's girlfriend, Becky. Joshua stated that he told Charlene that she does not live here and had to leave. Joshua stated that Charlene started to leave but stopped in the threshold of the door and then tried to push her way back into the residence, at which time he reached out and placed his left hand on her right shoulder in an attempt to stop her and to guide her out of the door. Joshua stated that Charlene immediately yelled ouch and tried to throw herself to the ground as if he had struck her. Joshua stated he took a step back and stated, "I did not hurt you, I did not hit you." Joshua stated his son * * *, daughter * * * , and Eman's son * * * along with Eman were all present in the residence during this incident. Joshua stated that Charlene stepped out of the door and he grabbed her shoes and threw them out on the front steps and once again told her she had to leave. Joshua stated he walked her to her car and as she got in and closed the door he tried talking to her, asking her why she was acting like this. Joshua stated her window was half way down and as he was leaning on it she stated that he had to move, started the car, turned the wheel and quickly reversed which resulted in him having to push off the car to prevent him from getting his feet run over. I specifically asked Joshua if he placed his hands anywhere else on Charlene's body beside her shoulder and he stated "not at all." I also asked if he had at any time had his hands near or around Charlene's neck and he stated no. I also asked if he was trying to cause physical harm to Charlene at any time during his contact with her this evening and he stated "no, I just wanted her to leave."

(Doc. No. 21-1 at 6.) Plaintiff then prepared a written statement to the same effect. (Doc. No. 21-5.)

Mummert's police report also indicates he spoke with the Goodens' children and Plaintiff's roommate Eman. (Doc. No. 21-1 at 6.) According to this report, the Goodens' son was not in aposition to see whether there was any physical contact between Plaintiff and Ms. Gooden. Id. The Goodens' daughter indicated Plaintiff asked Ms. Gooden to leave; Ms. Gooden refused to do so; and, she saw Plaintiff reach out and touch Ms. Gooden by the shoulder while they were standing near the front door. Id. The Goodens' daughter indicated she did not observe Plaintiff place his hands around Ms. Gooden's neck. Id. Eman reported to Mummert that Plaintiff never struck Ms. Gooden but did "grab her by the arm...