LaFever v. Clarke

525 F.Supp.3d 305

Donna LAFEVER, Plaintiff,

v.Brandon CLARKE, Daniel J. Sheehan, Ernest R. Cutting, Jr., Ed White, Craig Hackett, Tracy Rotundo, and Alleesha Shopa, Defendants.

3:17-CV-1206

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed March 11, 2021

W. ANDREW MCCULLOUGH, ATTORNEY AT LAW, OF COUNSEL: WILLIAM A. MCCULLOUGH, ESQ., Attorneys for Plaintiff, 6885 South State Street, Suite 200, Midvale, UT 84047.

OF COUNSEL: GREGG T. JOHNSON, ESQ., APRIL J. LAWS, ESQ., COREY A. RUGGIERO, ESQ., LORAINE CLARE JELINEK, ESQ., JOHNSON LAWS, LLC, Attorneys for Defendants Brandon Clarke and Daniel J. Sheehan, 646 Plank Road, Suite 205, Clifton Park, NY 12065.

OF COUNSEL: FRANK W. MILLER, ESQ., CHARLES C. SPAGNOLI, ESQ., OFFICE OF FRANK W. MILLER, Attorneys for Defendants Brandon Clarke, Daniel J. Sheehan, Ernest R. Cutting, Jr., Ed White, Craig Hackett, Tracy Rotundo, and Alleesha Shopa, 6575 Kirkville Road, East Syracuse, NY 13057.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...314

II. BACKGROUND ...315

A. Arrest at the Hotel...316

B. Booking at the Police Station...316

C. Intake at the County Jail...317

III. LEGAL STANDARDS ...318

A. Summary Judgment...318

B. Qualified Immunity...318

IV. DISCUSSION ...319

A. Threshold Matters...319

1. The City Defendants’ Statement of Facts...319

2. The County Defendants’ Statement of Facts...321

i. Paragraph Nine...321

ii. Paragraphs Twelve Through Sixteen...322

iii. Paragraphs Eighteen and Nineteen...325

3. LaFever's Declarations...327

4. The Video Evidence...327

B. The Merits...328

1. The City Defendants...328

i. False Arrest...329

ii. Excessive Force...331

2. The County Defendants...333

i. Remaining Claims...333

a. The Jail Intake Video...334

b. The Decontamination Shower...336

c. The Strip Search...337

d. Municipal Liability...338

3. The Remaining Doe...339

V. CONCLUSION ...339

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna LaFever ("LaFever" or "plaintiff") filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendants City of Norwich, New York ("Norwich" or the "City"), Norwich Police Chief Rodney V. Marsh ("Chief Marsh"), Norwich Police Officer Brandon Clarke ("City Officer Clarke"), Norwich Police Officer Daniel Sheehan ("City Officer Sheehan"), and a group of John and Jane Does (the "Does") employed by the Chenango County (the "County") Sheriff's Office at the County Jail (the "County Jail" or the "Jail").

LaFever's complaint alleged that City Officer Clarke and City Officer Sheehan used excessive force while falsely arresting her at the Howard Johnson's Hotel in Norwich, New York. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint further alleged that the Does used excessive force when they took custody of her at the County Jail. Id.

On December 6, 2017, LaFever amended her complaint to add County Sheriff Ernest R. Cutting, Jr. ("Sheriff Cutting") as a named defendant. Dkt. No. 5. Thereafter, plaintiff amended her complaint to identify four of the Does: County Jail Corrections Officers Craig Hackett ("County Officer Hackett"), Tracy Rotundo ("County Officer Rotundo"), Ed White ("County Officer White"), and Alleesha Shopa ("County Officer Shopa"). Second Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 34. A single Doe defendant remained unidentified. Id.

LaFever's nine-count second amended complaint asserts § 1983 claims against City Officers Clarke and Sheehan for false arrest and imprisonment (Second Cause of Action), unreasonable search and seizure (Third Cause of Action), and excessive force (Fifth Cause of Action). The second amended complaint also asserts § 1983 claims against County Officers Hackett, Rotundo, White, Shopa, and the Doe for false arrest and imprisonment (Second Cause of Action), excessive force (Fourth Cause of Action), and a violation of her rights to due process and equal protection (Seventh Cause of Action). Finally, the second amended complaint asserts § 1983 municipal liability claims against the City and the County (Eighth Cause of Action).¹

On May 3, 2019, LaFever moved for partial summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 56. Dkt. No. 71.² According to plaintiff, surveillance video from the receiving area of the County Jail establishes that the conduct of County Officers Hackett, Rotundo, White, Shopa, and the Doe amounts to excessive force as a matter of law. Dkt. No. 71-4. Plaintiff further argues that she is entitled to summary judgment on her municipal liability claim against the County. Id.

On June 28, 2019, the City, Chief Marsh, City Officer Clarke, and City Officer Sheehan (collectively the "City defendants") moved for summary judgment on all of the claims LaFever asserted against them. Dkt. No. 79. According to the City defendants, other video evidence and testimony from the hotel's manager conclusively establishes that both officers acted reasonably in arresting plaintiff after she pushed and shoved them and refused to leave the hotel. Dkt. No. 79-14.

On June 30, 2019, Sheriff Cutting and County Officers Hackett, Rotundo, White, and Shopa (collectively the "County defendants") also moved for summary judgment on all of the claims LaFever asserted against them. Dkt. No. 80. According to the County defendants, they acted reasonably in using a modest degree of force on her at the County Jail because she was physically resistant and ignored commands to drop an unknown object. Dkt. No. 80-16.

On August 20, 2019, LaFever stipulated to the discontinuance of her claims against the City and Chief Marsh. Dkt. No. 87. The remaining matters have been fully briefed and will be considered on the basis of the submissions without oral argument.

II. BACKGROUND

LaFever is a California resident who, during the time period relevant here, was engaged to Ronald Busbee ("Busbee"). Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 10. Plaintiff and her fiancé had come to New York to visit relatives in Chenango County. See County Defs.’ Rule 7.1(a)(3) Statement ("County Facts"), Dkt. No. 80-2. They stayed in Room 204 at the Howard Johnson's Hotel, which is located at 75 North Broad Street in Norwich. City Defs.’ Rule 7.1(a)(3) Statement ("City Facts"), Dkt. No. 79-15 3.

On November 30, 2015, LaFever and her fiancé were scheduled to check out of the hotel room. City Facts ¶ 3. They had not booked another night. Id. ¶ 4. For some reason, though, plaintiff called hotel manager Katherine Babcock ("Babcock") and told her that she refused to leave the hotel room.³ Id. ¶¶ 1, 6–7. The conversation got heated, plaintiff continued to refuse to vacate the room, and eventually she told Babcock to "call the cops." Id. ¶¶ 7–9.

A. Arrest at the Hotel

Hotel management called LaFever's bluff. They telephoned the Norwich Police Department ("Norwich PD") and requested assistance with "a guest refusing to vacate the hotel room after her scheduled stay had expired." City Facts ¶¶ 10–12. City Officer Clarke and City Officer Sheehan responded to the hotel's call for help. Id. ¶ 13. The two officers showed up in uniform and a marked Norwich PD police cruiser. Id. ¶¶ 14–15.

Babcock led the officers to LaFever's hotel room. City Facts ¶ 16. City Officer Clarke knocked on the door and requested identification from plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. Plaintiff refused to provide any; instead, she shut the door on City Officer Clarke. Id. ¶¶ 21–22. Plaintiff then began arguing with the officers through the hotel room door, telling them that her refusal to leave the hotel was "none of your business." Id. ¶¶ 23–24.

After some back and forth, LaFever opened the door to the hotel room and, ignoring the officers, began talking directly to Babcock in a "raised" voice. City Facts ¶¶ 25–26. City Officer Clarke gave plaintiff "multiple orders" to vacate the room. Id. ¶ 27. Plaintiff ignored him. Id. ¶ 28.

LaFever soon turned her attention away from Babcock and toward City Officer Clarke, addressing him in an "aggressive manner." City Facts ¶ 30. With the two officers still standing in the doorway to the hotel room, plaintiff tried multiple times to push past them. Id. ¶¶ 31–35. On her second attempt, plaintiff shoved City Officer Clarke on his right side. Id. ¶¶ 36–37.

The two officers decided to arrest LaFever for harassment based on the physical contact she had made with City Officer Clarke. City Facts ¶ 38. They told plaintiff she was under arrest. Id. ¶ 38. Then they tried to put her in handcuffs. Id. ¶ 39. Plaintiff resisted. Id. ¶¶ 40–41. She punched and kicked City Officer Clarke. Id. ¶¶ 42–43, 46–47. She also thrashed her body around and flailed her arms and legs. Id. ¶¶ 44–45. Both officers directed her to calm down, but she continued to resist. Id. ¶¶ 48–54. Plaintiff screamed obscenities and made statements that both officers perceived as threatening. Id. ¶¶ 55–57.

Eventually, the two officers managed to place LaFever in handcuffs. City Facts ¶¶ 58. But she continued to resist as they tried to escort her to the police cruiser. Id. ¶ 58. Plaintiff refused to walk, leaned her body against the police car, and tried to prevent City Officer Clarke from putting her in the backseat of the vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 59–62. Babcock, the hotel manager, witnessed these events, id. ¶¶ 63–64, but Busbee, plaintiff's fiancé, did not arrive until after the incident had ended, id. ¶¶ 65–66.

B. Booking at the Police Station

After they got her into the police car, City Officers Clarke and Sheehan transported LaFever to the Norwich police station so they could complete some paperwork about the arrest. See City Facts ¶¶ 71–72, 77. Plaintiff made "alarming" and "threatening" statements to the officers during this trip. Id. ¶¶ 71–74. Surveillance camera footage offered by the City defendants shows that plaintiff was taken inside the police station and handcuffed to a chair in an open booking area. Ex. A to Jelinek Decl., Dkt. No. 79-1 ("Police Station Booking Video" or the "Booking Video") (conventionally filed with the Court).

LaFever did not have any obvious injuries as a result of her arrest. City Facts ¶¶ 75–76; see also Police Station Booking Video. And plaint...