Martin v. City of Fort Wayne

MARQUAYLE MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FORT WAYNE, BARRY PRUSER, MICHAEL LONG,MARTIN P. GROOMS, DERRICK DEMOREST, and TODD HUGHES, Defendants.

Cause No. 1:15-CV-274

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

January 12, 2017

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment. The Defendants, including the City of Fort Wayne and five Fort Wayne police officers, filed a motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry 26), Plaintiff Marquayle Martin filed a response in opposition (DE 28), and the Defendants filed a reply (DE 29) and a sur-reply (DE 35). Martin then filed his own motion for partial summary judgment (DE 40), the Defendants filed a response in opposition (DE 45), and Martin filed a reply brief (DE 55). For the reasons discussed below, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (DE 26) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (DE 40) is DENIED. The Defendants' motion is: GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims against the individual Defendants for excessive force, failure to intervene, and battery; and GRANTED as to the Plaintiff's claims against the City of Fort Wayne under Monell v. Dept of Soc. Svcs. and under respondeat superior (based on the same allegations of excessive force and battery). The Defendants' motion is DENIED as to the issue of qualified immunity and DENIED as to the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. Both the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment are DENIED as to the Plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against all Defendants for the alleged illegal search and seizure of his vehicle and those claims remain pending.

BACKGROUND

On June 27, 2014, Martin was driving in Fort Wayne with four passengers-two adult females, one adult male, and a five-year-old girl. Je'Carri Martin and Taylor Carswell, the adult women, are the Plaintiff's cousins and the young girl is his daughter. Both women had valid driver's licenses at the time (an important fact, as discussed later). The adult male, who first identified himself to officers as William Causey, eventually admitted his real name was Teron Walker. Since Walker had outstanding active warrants he was arrested at the scene. Moments before Martin was stopped, as he was driving in the vicinity of St. Mary's and Sherman streets just north of downtown, he got involved in a sort of "road rage" incident. While the phrase "road rage" implies some sort of heated, if not violent, dispute between drivers, this encounter ended before it escalated to that point, since Defendant police officer Michael Long appeared on the scene and pulled Martin over. According to Martin and his passengers, another vehicle, identified only as a "green vehicle," was in front of Martin's car and the driver of that other vehicle was allegedly hitting his brakes, causing Martin to have to brake hard to avoid a collision. This made Martin angry and he tailgated the green vehicle for a short time before he was stopped by police. The driver of the green vehicle drove off and was not stopped. At one point during this encounter, Martin threw coins out of the sunroof of his vehicle, striking the green vehicle. Officer Long was patrolling in the area, saw part of the confrontation between the two vehicles,and pursued them for a short time before Martin pulled his car into a parking lot. Long, who was in full police uniform and driving an unmarked police car, followed Martin into the lot, drew his sidearm and pointed it at Martin's vehicle, and waited for backup officers to arrive. Defendant officer Barry Pruser was the next police officer to arrive on the scene-just moments after Long-and Demorest, Grooms, and Hughes arrived moments after Pruser. The officers ordered everyone out of Martin's vehicle. Long and Pruser contend that Martin was uncooperative at first, ignoring their commands to keep his hands up, walking around casually and refusing to stand still, and demonstrating what the officers contend was "continual intentional disobeying of commands." Defendants' Designation of Evidence, Pruser Supplemental Narrative (DE 26-1), p. 5. In short, the Defendant officers contend that Martin was uncooperative and refused to obey their commands during the stop, necessitating what they maintain was a reasonable use of force to effectuate his arrest on a charge of aggressive driving. Martin maintains that there was nothing at all reasonable about the amount of force used against him, and that it was excessive to the point of being unconstitutional. Martin insists that "at all times, he attempted to comply with the commands of officers." Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (DE 28), p. 4 (citing Plaintiff's Affidavit, Exh. A). Despite his alleged compliance, Martin contends that "officers on the scene repeatedly yelled at him, and had him raise his hands above his head continuously for more than several minutes so that, at times, the officers' commands were confusing and . . . his arms sagged due to the difficulty and pain he suffered in trying to keep them raised for an extended period of time." Id., pp. 4-5. Martin states that "[d]uring the traffic stop . . . Defendant Pruser ordered him to kneel in gravel . . ." and that he "was handcuffed by Defendant Pruser after kneeling in the gravel as instructed." Id., p. 5. Martin also alleges that Pruser "bent [Martin's] arms in a painfulmanner, then stepped on Plaintiff's calf, then, after Plaintiff complained of the battery, Defendant Pruser choked him." Id. Finally, Martin contends that "after this encounter with Defendant Pruser, Defendant Long slammed [Martin] while handcuffed against a police vehicle." Id. Martin contends that the actions of Long and Pruser were excessive under the circumstances, especially given that the officers do not "claim that [Martin] posed a danger to officers or others[,]" . . . or that "he had a firearm or weapon[,]" . . . or that "he tried to attack or injure officers." Id., p. 11. Consequently, argues Martin, the officers' use of force to arrest him was unreasonable under the circumstances and therefore unconstitutional.¹

Once Martin was arrested and secured, Long called a wrecker service and had Martin's vehicle towed from the scene. Long states that he did so "because [Martin] was arrested for aggressive driving and the vehicle was involved in the offense. I was also concerned because the green vehicle involved in the incident had not been stopped and the aggressive driving could have resumed had Mr. Martin's vehicle been driven from the scene." Defendants' Designation of Evidence (DE 26-2), Long Affidavit, p. 4. Once again, Martin has a different take on this, alleging that the Defendant officers violated his constitutional rights by searching his car without probable cause or a warrant, and by seizing his car even though the officers knew that a licenseddriver was present and able to remove the vehicle after Martin's arrest. This matter of the search and seizure of Martin's vehicle is also the subject of the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, and will be discussed in more detail later.

Based on those facts, Martin filed his complaint in this case asserting the following claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

1) Fourth Amendment excessive force claims against Long and Pruser and failure to intervene claims against all of the Defendant officers in their individual capacities;

2) a claim against the City of Fort Wayne under Monell v. Dept of Soc. Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) for alleged unconstitutional policies or customs "which lead to the arrest, detention, and use of excessive force upon the Plaintiff";

3) Indiana state law battery claims against the officers "for which the City of Fort Wayne, as their employer, is liable based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior"; and

4) Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claims against all Defendants (the officers in their individual capacities and the City in its official capacity, again under Monell) for the alleged illegal search and seizure of his vehicle.

Second Amended Complaint, pp. 1-2. Martin seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Id., p. 5. The Defendants seek summary judgment on all of Martin's claims and Martin seeks partial summary judgment on the issue of the search and seizure of his vehicle.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Disputes concerning material facts are genuine where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In deciding whether genuine issues of material fact exist, the court construes all facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See id. at 255. However, neither the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties," id., 477 U.S. at 247, nor the existence of "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986), will defeat a motion for summary judgment. Michas v. Health Cost Controls of Ill., Inc., 209 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2000).

Summary judgment is not a substitute for a trial on the merits nor is it a vehicle for resolving factual disputes. Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994). Therefore, after drawing all reasonable inferences from the facts in favor of the non-movant, if genuine doubts remain and a reasonable fact-finder could find for the party opposing the motion, summary judgment is inappropriate. See Shields Enterprises, Inc. v. First Chicago...