Hughes v. Herbster

1

KEAUGNTEY HUGHES and G.B., a minor, Plaintiffs v. NICHOLAS HERBSTER and ABIGAIL ROBERTS, Defendants

Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-2204

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

November 3, 2023

MEMORANDUM

Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania

This Section 1983 action arises out of plaintiff Keaugntey Hughes's arrest for disorderly conduct following a traffic stop for a window tint violation. Hughes asserts that Harrisburg Police Officer Nicholas Herbster used excessive force in violation of her civil rights when he pulled her out of her vehicle, slammed her to the ground, and handcuffed her. She also claims that Officer Abigail Roberts failed to intervene to prevent Officer Herbster from using excessive force, that both defendants are liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that both are culpable under the state-created danger doctrine for their indifference to the needs of Hughes's five-year-old daughter, G.B. Defendants have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). For the reasons that follow, we will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.

I. Factual Background & Procedural History^[1]

On the evening of May 9, 2019, Hughes picked up G.B. from ballet class in Penbrook Borough, Pennsylvania, buckled her into a car seat, and started driving home to Mechanicsburg. (See Doc. 94 ¶ 1; Hughes Dep. 41:17-44:19 127:8-128:3). Hughes was driving westbound through the intersection of North 6th and Maclay Streets in Harrisburg when she noticed a police vehicle parked at a nearby gas station; Officer Herbster was behind the wheel. (See Hughes Dep. 45:10-21). Officer Herbster saw the heavily tinted windows on Hughes's gold Acura, pulled behind her, and turned on his emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop. (See Id. at 43:15-17, 45:22-46:3). He also radioed his location; Officer Roberts heard the radio call and drove to the area to assist. (See Roberts Dep. at 26:7-28:1). The events that followed were captured by the video camera affixed to Officer Herbster's dashboard. (See 5/9/19 Rec. 00:39-27:26).^[2]

Hughes made a lefthand turn onto North 5th Street and pulled over to the curb approximately halfway down the block toward Peffer Street. (See Id. at 00:4501:13). Officer Herbster parked directly behind Hughes. (See id. at 01:11-01:17). Hughes was talking on her cell phone when Officer Herbster approached her vehicle. (See Doc. 94 ¶ 11). Hughes had been calling and FaceTiming family members to tell them where she was and what was happening. (See Doc. 94 ¶¶ 7-10; see also Hughes Dep. at 52:13-54:24, 58:4-19, 108:11-109:9). She recalled speaking with her two sisters and a cousin. (See Hughes Dep. at 53:2-9, 98:19-100:3, 105:8106:22, 109:10-110:5). Officer Herbster explained he pulled Hughes over because of the heavy tint on her windows. (See id. at 51:19-52:3). He then asked for her license, registration, and proof of insurance. (See id. at 52:5-6). Hughes quickly handed over her license, (see 5/9/19 Rec. 02:08-2:11), but she did not have her vehicle paperwork at the ready; she was still on the phone with one of her sisters while looking for her other documents, (see Hughes Dep. at 52:8-12, 59:2-3). Officer Roberts arrived on the scene around this time. (See 5/9/19 Rec. 03:30-03:35; Roberts Dep. at 28:5-17).

Officer Herbster instructed Hughes to get off the phone. (See Hughes Dep. at 54:25-55:2)). Hughes asked him why; she later explained that she wanted to stay in contact with her sister because Officer Herbster spoke to her “in an aggressive manner” and she was afraid of what might happen. (See Id. at 55:3-19, 110:20-112:9, 127:24-129:3). Officer Herbster repeated his directive. (See id. at 55:20-56:1). Hughes indicated that she would end the phone conversation in order to begin recording the traffic stop, which Officer Herbster purportedly dismissed as unnecessary because he was wearing a body camera. (See id. at 57:4-59:15; 60:8-20; see also id. at 112:20-113:4). He reiterated his demand to terminate the call and then told Hughes to get out of the car. (See id. at 59:20-60:7, 61:18-20, 63:3-10, 113:4-10).^[3]Hughes questioned the order but did not comply with it. (See id. at 63:12-14, 64:815, 113:11-14). Officer Herbster opened Hughes's door, reached across her body, disengaged her seatbelt, and started pulling her out. (See id. at 65:21-66:7, 67:1-3, 68:10-70:9; 113:17-20; see also 5/9/19 Rec. 03:42-04:00). Hughes dropped her phone on the passenger side, yelled “get off me,” and began holding onto whatever she could to stay in the car. (See Hughes Dep. at 63:18-22, 65:2-12, 67:4-25, 70:24-71:10, 113:22-25; see also Roberts Dep. at 39:1-19). Officer Roberts stepped in at this point to help Officer Herbster extricate Hughes from the vehicle by loosening Hughes's grip on the driver door handle. (See Hughes Dep. at 113:20-21; Roberts Dep. at 40:11-17, 45:18-23; see also 5/9/19 Rec. 04:00-04:07). Officer Herbster appears to grab Hughes by the back of the neck with his left hand while his right forearm crosses beneath her chin. (See 5/9/19 Rec. 04:00-04:07). Hughes then falls to her knees. (See id.)

The officers scuffled with Hughes, who weighed approximately 119 pounds, for approximately 45 seconds before dislodging her from the car and pinning her down. (See 5/9/19 Rec. 03:48-04:35; see also Hughes Dep. at 126:10-12). Hughes claims that, once she was out of the car, Officer Herbster “[p]icked [her] up and slammed [her] into the ground.” (See Hughes Dep. at 113:17-21; see also id. at 72:28, 114:4-5). As best we can tell from the video, Hughes's upper body rises off the ground while Officer Herbster's grasps her from behind, they both fall forward, and her face strikes the pavement at the same time his left leg rises several feet off the ground. (See 5/9/19 Rec. 04:15-04:33). He also appears to lie or put much of his weight on Hughes's back while Officer Roberts holds down her legs. (See id.)^[4]Officer Herbster handcuffed Hughes moments later. (See Id. at 04:30-04:50).

G.B. unbuckled herself from her car seat during the scuffle, exited through the open door, and ran over to her mother while she was being handcuffed. (See Id. at 04:17-04:42; see also Hughes Dep. at 94:4-15). Officer Roberts tapped G.B. on the shoulder, shooing her away toward the sidewalk; neither officer attempted to secure the stray child. (See 5/9/19 Rec. 04:39-04:43). Hughes ultimately asked a female bystander she did not know to pick up G.B. because she was concerned for G.B.'s safety around an older man who hovered nearby. (See Hughes Dep. at 88:1-89:23, 92:8-93:2, 130:22-131:15; see also 5/9/19 Rec. 04:36-05:19). Hughes's sister retrieved G.B. from the scene before Hughes was taken away for booking. (See Hughes Dep. at 93:5-94:3, 94:24-95:15, 100:9-101:9, 139:13-140:4; see also 5/9/19 Rec. 17:13-18:00). Hughes cut her knees when the officers took her to the ground, and she claims to have suffered lingering aches and pains throughout her body, including her neck and wrists, but she never sought medical attention for these injuries, nor did she seek medical or psychological treatment for G.B. (See Hughes Dep. at 69:11-14, 82:13-85:14, 86:14-20, 118:14-121:4, 133:20-134:7).

The Commonwealth charged Hughes with disorderly conduct, improper window tinting, and resisting arrest; she pled guilty to disorderly conduct. (See Doc. 94 ¶ 2 (citing Doc. 25-4 at 2); see also Hughes Dep. at 96:6-97:24). Hughes filed a complaint against Officers Herbster and Roberts in November 2020. We granted Hughes leave to file an amended complaint in March 2021 and a second amended complaint in May 2021, and she subsequently agreed to dismiss certain claims. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on Hughes' remaining claims. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision.

II. Legal Standard

Through summary adjudication, the court may dispose of those claims that do not present a “genuine dispute as to any material fact” and for which a jury trial would be an empty and unnecessary formality. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). The burden of proof tasks the nonmoving party to come forth with “affirmative evidence, beyond the allegations of the pleadings,” in support of its right to relief. See Pappas v. City of Lebanon, 331 F.Supp.2d 311, 315 (M.D. Pa. 2004); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The court is to view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the non[]moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.” Thomas v. Cumberland County, 749 F.3d 217, 222 (3d Cir. 2014). This evidence must be adequate, as a matter of law, to sustain a judgment in favor of the nonmoving party on the claims. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-57 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-89 (1986). Only if this threshold is met may the cause of action proceed. See Pappas, 331 F.Supp.2d at 315.

III. Discussion

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs' claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Doc. 95 at 3-14). Defendants also dispute the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each claim, (see Id. at 14-29), and the viability of plaintiffs' punitive-damages demand, (see id. at 29-30). We address these arguments seriatim.

A. Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiff's rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231-32 (2009). No liability will attach if a reasonable actor could have believed the challenged conduct was in compliance with settled law. See id. The doctrine cloaks government officials with ...